Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

METHODIST CHURCH BILL [Lords]

Order for consideration read.

To be considered tomorrow.

MOTOR VEHICLE OFFENCES

Address for Return
showing the number of offences relating to motor vehicles in England and Wales, the number of persons prosecuted for such offences, statistics of court proceedings and the number of alleged offences in respect of which written warnings were issued by the police, together with the number of persons concerned, during the year ended 31st December 1975.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Health Care Expenditure

Mr. D. E. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the projected change in total expenditure on health care in Wales in the period 1976 to 1980.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Barry Jones): From £224·9 million in 1976–77 to £237·3 million in 1979–80, the latest year for which projections have been made.

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful for that reply. Can the Minister confirm that this figure represents an increase of 4·6 per cent. while the comparable figure in the consultative document for England indicates a rise of 5 per cent., despite the fact that the standardised mortality ratio in Wales is higher than in England and Wales and the discharge rates are 100 per 10,000 of the population higher in Wales than in England?

Mr. Jones: The Welsh figure shows a growth rate of 4·83 per cent. compared with 4·2 per cent. for Great Britain, and the per capita increase will be about 1½ per cent. higher in Wales than in England. Given the nature of our problems and economic circumstances, the Government have done all they could for Wales.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Against the background of last week's public expenditure proposals, can my hon. Friend give an assurance that work on the new general hospital at Bangor will go ahead?

Mr. Jones: Yes, I can give that assurance. This £15 million project for which my right hon. Friend has struggled for so many years will go ahead and the signs are that it will keep to the timetable.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is the Minister aware that, although the NHS and the hospital services in Wales could do with more money, as they could elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the budgeting method means that there is extravagant and wasteful expenditure at the end of every financial period with money being spent suddenly, and perhaps without a great deal of thought, on things like television when, with greater care, it could be devoted to far better purposes?

Mr. Jones: I should like to have any details that the hon. Gentleman may have in mind. I should always say "Yes" to more money for hospitals, and the area health authorities are doing their utmost for Wales despite the problems that they inherited and are facing.

Mr. Abse: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) and the Government would have a better sense of priorities if they attempted to show their support for the health service in Wales instead of squandering millions of pounds in acquiring the Temple of Peace, erecting a bureaucracy and creating an apparatus which the people of Wales do not want? Will my hon. Friend suggest to the hon. Member for Merioneth that he needs to discover his priorities and choose between real social needs or an Assembly for which the people of Wales have no desire?

Mr. Jones: I am sure that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) knows his priorities, just as I know the priorities of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) in no uncertain fashion. I take this opportunity to reiterate my faith in the policies that the Government have put forward on devolution and for the National Health Service.

Rate Support Grant

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is satisfied with the formula which governs the rate support grant for local authorities as it affects Wales.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): The basis of this formula is provided by the Local Government Act 1974. In 1976–77 it resulted in a grant to Welsh local authorities of about 7½ per cent. of the total to be distributed in England and Wales. The Welsh proportion of the England and Wales population is 5·6 per cent.

Mr. Evans: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware how much some local authorities in Wales, including Dyfed, suffered last year from the reform of the formula in favour of big conurbations? Has not the time come for the Government to consider settling a Welsh grant separately from that for England, in consultation with Welsh local authorities, which increasingly want to reorganise in a separate body?

Mr. Morris: I am not sure that Welsh local authorities would all like the hon. Gentleman's proposition. Welsh local government has done rather well in the course of my negotiations. Powys gets 80 per cent. of its expenditure through the rate support grant and Dyfed, Clwyd and Gwyned each get about 70 per cent., which is higher than the national average.
The per capita rate support grant is £165 in Wales compared with £122·3 in the rest of the country—35 per cent. higher. I am considering all these matters, but before we set up an Assembly it would be premature to change the system from which Wales, without boasting unduly, has not done too badly.

Mr. Roderick: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that those of us who support the idea of a local income tax believe that some form of central Government support will still be needed because there will be poorer areas under any system?

Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend has raised the issue of local income tax which was canvassed in the Layfield Report. He will have to wait until the Government


have carried out their consultations with local authorities and then reached a decision.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that the formula is working satisfactorily in the case of retirement areas such as mine, where there is a high proportion of retired people for whom additional services have to be provided?

Mr. Morris: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the formula is very complicated. It is always capable of improvement, but when improvements were suggested last year as regards the sparsity and super-sparsity factor it was discovered by those canvassing it, particularly from the hon. Member's area, that in the end it did not necessarily work to their advantage. Therefore, I would be the first to welcome any ideas that the hon. Gentleman has for improvements if they prove in the end to be of advantage to these areas.

Hospital Doctors

Mr. Ifor Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest estimate of the percentage of junior doctors on the staff of Welsh hospitals coming from overseas.

Mr. Barry Jones: 53 per cent. of junior doctors on the staff of Welsh hospitals at 30th September 1975 were born elsewhere than in the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic.

Mr. Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware that, were it not for the services of these overseas doctors, services in Welsh hospitals would be at a critical stage? Is he further aware that a large number of students, especially sixth-form students, desire to qualify as doctors but are unable to gain admission to medical schools? Therefore, when the opportunity arises, will he give priority to the establishment of a second medical school in Wales to be located at Swansea, where excellent university and hospital facilities are avaliable?

Mr. Jones: I do not underestimate the valuable contribution of doctors from overseas to the staffing of the National Health Service in Wales. I also recognise the close interest that my hon. Friend takes as Chairman of the Council of

University College, Swansea, which may have some bearing on his wanting a new health school at Swansea. Although I recognise his close interest in the possible location of a second school at Swansea, I can make no forecasts, but the present target of 4,100 entrants per year to medical schools by 1980 took into account a possible reduction in the flow of doctors from overseas.

Mr. Hooson: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, with over half the junior doctors in Welsh hospitals being from overseas—from areas many of which are grossly under-doctored—we in Wales and in the United Kingdom as a whole should be recruiting far more medical students, wherever they are to be trained? Is there not a pressing case for this from the world point of view and from our own?

Mr. Jones: Given the present constraints on public expenditure which the Government face, and given part of the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Davies) about the likely requirements for doctors by 1980, all I can say at this stage is that I can make no forecast. However, the second school, if ever there should be one, may be at Swansea.

Mr. Kinnock: While endorsing the views of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Davies), may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that the figure he gave of 53 per cent. is probably the best rebuttal of those who, even in Wales, wish, by a mixture of parochialism and prejudice, to generate racial hatred in our community?

Mr. Jones: I fully understand my hon. Friend's strong feelings. I do not underestimate the valuable contribution made by doctors from overseas to the staffing of our hospitals. As for figures, the figure for all doctors from overseas employed whole- or part-time in the hospital service is about 33 per cent.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: If the Government cannot now authorise a further medical school, will the Minister undertake to have early discussions with the Welsh National. School of Medicine about ways in which the training—particularly the training of doctors—can be spread geographically? I am thinking, for example,


of students taking a clinical year or two at Swansea or Bangor.

Mr. Jones: The Welsh National School of Medicine and the Government are in the closest contact with Ministers in the Welsh Office.

Sir Raymond Gower: Does the Government's examination of this subject show that we are not training enough home-produced doctors, or does it show that too many of our doctors are leaving this country after training?

Mr. Jones: That is a difficult question to answer immediately and perhaps I might correspond with the hon. Member. However, the present target of 4,100 entrants per year to medical schools by 1980 took into account the possible reduction in the flow of doctors from overseas.

Rail Services

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the possibility of rail cuts in Wales.

Mr. Barry Jones: My right hon. and learned Friend has received more than 2,000 letters, nearly all of them in a duplicated stock form, opposing any reduction in rail services.

Mr. Anderson: Since we in Wales suffered more from past closures and since, if the consultative document is implemented, we could be more vulnerable in future, can my hon. Friend give us a clear assurance that the Welsh Office favours the retention of the existing rail network in Wales?

Mr. Jones: The Welsh Office knows where its duty lies in regard to Wales. There are currently no proposals to close any railway line in Wales and the Government have no intention of reducing the size of the network. It remains policy to encourage the transfer to rail of freight traffic, which the railways are best suited to handle, by means of grant. As an example of something close to my hon. Friend's constituency, BP Chemicals was granted 50 per cent. of the cost of providing sidings and so on to transport the highly toxic product propylene to Manchester. The total cost of the project was £220,000.

Mr. Wigley: Although one welcomes that last statement, will the hon. Gentleman accept that, to keep the rail network, an investment programme is necessary to sustain the standards of track and equipment in Wales? In particular, will he cast his mind to the Cambrian Coast line, which is often considered a doubtful line? Will he negotiate with the Wales Tourist Board and British Rail about the possibility of extending the use of that line to tourism so that it links the two important tourist areas of Pwllheli and Dwyfor and the Aberystwyth area and about the tremendous potential for moving tourists from one area to the other, to the benefit of both?

Mr. Jones: This is a matter for the Wales Tourist Board and British Rail, but the Welsh Office takes a keen interest in activities on the Cambrian Coast line.

Port Talbot

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to visit Port Talbot.

Mr. John Morris: As the hon. Member may be aware, Port Talbot lies within the constituency which I have the honour to represent in this House. I accordingly make frequent visits, the most recent having been at the end of last week.

Sir A. Meyer: During his trips to Port Talbot, by helicopter or otherwise, will the right hon and learned Gentleman find time to read the letter in the Financial Times on 22nd July from Dr. Kay in which he argued that the Secretary of State for Industry was right to limit the extension of Port Talbot steelworks to 4 million tons? If the Secretary of State agrees with that, would he not also agree that the way is now open for investment in modernising the open-hearth furnaces of Shotton, and will he soon press for an announcement?

Mr. Morris: I saw the letter from Dr. Kay. I am sorry that I cannot agree with him, particularly in view of his past interest in the matter. The hon. Member had best have regard to what he himself asked for in the debate on 20th February 1973, when he said that all he wanted was an assurance—[Interruption]—will the hon. Gentleman allow me?—that there would be no rundown in


Shotton in 1974 or 1975 or he would not be able to support the Government at the end of the day. All he got from Mr. Boardman, who was replying, was an assurance that there would be no closure until March 1975, at which he trooped into the Lobby with 294 others.

Mr. Ifor Davies: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the development of the steel industry in Port Talbot has an important bearing on the development and future of the tinplate industry, the bulk of which is located in West Wales, much of it in my constituency? Is he aware that the local action committee and all the local authorities are convinced that, unless the development of steel goes forward in Port Talbot in accordance with BSC strategy, the future of the steel industry in this country, facing foreign competition, will be very poor?

Mr. Morris: No one has been more anxious than I for the development of Port Talbot. Only last Friday I discussed with the works council development committee the Government's offer of an investment of £350 million. It was conveyed to me that the committee was most anxious for BSC to take up immediately the Government's offer and get on with it, although it is fully aware of the local problems.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Is it not the fact that the £350 million does not add to iron- and steel-making capacity? Can the Secretary of State challenge the view that in the two-and-a-half-year period of delay which has just ended not a single extra ton of iron and steel capacity has been achieved and that the absence of decisions about vital issues is gravely damaging to the steel industry in Wales?

Mr. Morris: If the hon. Gentleman has discussed this matter with his hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir. A. Meyer), he will know that it is of the utmost importance to all local communities for a proper study to be made of all these matters. These studies are continuing, and I hope that we shall reach the right decision at the end of the day.

Sir. A. Meyer: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek

to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Caernarvon Inner Relief Road

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of the starting date for the Caernarvon inner relief road; and if he will make a statement on the progress of preparatory work for this scheme.

Mr. Barry Jones: The target starting date for this scheme depends on the availability of funds. Acquisition of land and advance demolition work, which have been proceeding as quickly as financial resources have permitted, will continue.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that there is grave concern in Caernarvon at the dilapidated state of the town as a result of the slow progress of this project? Is he aware that, whereas some buildings need to be demolished, other buildings which are scheduled for demolition are perfectly good and can be used until it is absolutely necessary to pull them down for the road scheme? Will he and his Department look again at the scheme, in view of the possibility of delay, to ensure that we shall get the maximum possible benefit from the buildings in Caernarvon in the interim period?

Mr. Jones: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that I have co-operated with him previously on this difficult problem. If he will let me know specific details, I shall look again at the project in detail.

School Leavers

Mr. Kinnock: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with careers officers in Wales about the availability of jobs for school leavers.

Mr. John Morris: I have not myself had direct consultations, since this is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, but my office maintains the closest contact with his Department over all aspects of the employment situation, including Government measures to assist unemployed school leavers.

Mr. Kinnock: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that that is in some ways comforting news, although it does not provide additional jobs? Is he aware that Gwent currently has 15,000


unemployed people, a substantial proportion of whom are young school leavers? Will he use his voice in the Government to promote the idea of immediate reflation of the economy as the only means of overcoming the cause of inflation and our disastrous economic position, which is under-production?

Mr. Morris: No one is more aware than I am of the serious problem of unemployment. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to take account of the fact that there have been 2,400 applications in Wales for the recruitment subsidy for school leavers. Under the Job Creation Scheme 3,300 young people will benefit, and the Community Industry Scheme will mean new jobs for 400 young people in Wales. As I said, this is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, who will shortly be announcing further measures to help with the serious problem of unemployment among young people.

Mr. Hooson: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that with our background in Wales unemployment is probably one of the most tragic aspects of all? Has he had discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his other Cabinet colleagues on not increasing public expenditure but diverting public expenditure from other areas to meet this crucial problem?

Mr. Morris: This is a very difficult problem. It is as the result of such discussion that the schemes I mentioned have already been set up in Wales and elsewhere. I gave particulars of those schemes to the House a few moments ago. As I said, further discussions are going on, and my right hon. Friend will shortly make an announcement.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Would not such consultations belatedly help the right hon. and learned Gentleman to understand the scale of the social catastrophe that the Government's policies have inflicted on the Welsh people and prompt him perhaps to remind his hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) that a 20 per cent. increase in expenditure matched by a 2 per cent. increase in production must inevitably destroy the hopes of the young people of Wales?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman is responsible for his own remarks. I have

read in the South Wales Echo the remarks of other members of the Shadow Cabinet to the effect that many more cuts are needed. Had we had the public expenditure cuts which the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends wanted, there would have been a much higher rate of unemployment in Wales. We have deliberately sheltered the unemployed in Wales.

Welsh Assembly Site

Mr. Grist: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the negotiations taking place between his Department and the Welsh Centre for International Affairs for the use of the Temple of Peace and Health by the proposed Welsh Assembly.

Mr. John Morris: Responsibility for these negotiations rests with the Property Services Agency, although my Department is participating in them. Negotiations are still proceeding and it is hoped to make an early statement. In the meantime, the House will not expect me to say anything which might prejudice them.

Mr. Grist: Realising that the latest estimate for the alterations to the Temple of Peace in the event of a Welsh Assembly being established is £1,700,000, does not the Secretary of State agree that the 999-year lease held by the Welsh United Nations Association is extremely valuable and should be recognised as such? Will he give an assurance that, in the event of the South Glamorgan Health Authority's having to move, the cost of the move will fall on the devolution budget and not on the National Health Service?

Mr. Morris: In reply to the second part of the supplementary question, the area health authority has agreed in principle to move, subject to suitable alternative accommodation being provided. Detailed proposals for this and for the financial arrangements to be made are at present being discussed between the area health authority and my Department. In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, negotiations are proceeding and it would be prejudicial for me to comment at present.

Mr. Abse: By what right and what power is the Secretary of State negotiating for premises for an Assembly that


has not been approved by Parliament? My right hon. and learned Friend is reported to have said that he believes that the debate on the Assembly issue is over. Will he please come down to earth in his helicopter out of the clouds and recognise that the House has not approved the setting up of the Assembly? Will he make certain that any negotiations that are going on are subject not to contract but to the expressed will of the House? He will find that the House is not a creature of the Secretary of State for Wales or the Leader of the House and will be expressing itself next Session.

Mr. Morris: The statement I made referred to my party and my hon. Friend's party—

Mr. Abse: I was there before you were.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Not before me.

Mr. Morris: I said that the debate in my party was over. I am sure that my hon. Friend understands the sense in which I said that. As to negotiations my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced to the House the Government's intentions. We are proceeding in the normal way, as is customary.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the objective of those on the Conservative Benches who question him on this matter is to delay the setting up of the Assembly for Wales in favour of an increase in the power of bureaucratic government by increasing the size of the Welsh Office and refusing to submit it to Welsh democratic control?

Mr. Morris: I am responsible for many things but not for the policy of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Kinnock: Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain what could be more bureaucratic—indeed, autocratic—than building a multi-million-pound Assembly without submitting the proposal to the examination or vote of Parliament?

Mr. Morris: As I said a few minutes ago, my right hon. Friend's announcement was in the usual form—that these matters are proceeding.

Mr. Marten: At what age will people be able to be elected to the Welsh

Assembly? If elections can be from the age of 18, and if the same applies to direct elections to the European Parliament, would it not be a good idea—in answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock)— and take up a lot of the unemployment of school leavers if they were elected to both assemblies?

Mr. Morris: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has made a serious comment and that if he puts himself up for election to the Welsh Assembly it will be treated equally seriously.

Public Expenditure

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the proposed public expenditure cuts will be borne by Wales; how it will affect employment in the Principality; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Morris: The reductions in 1977–78 in the public expenditure programmes within my responsibility will be of the order of £12 million at 1976 survey prices. On the other hand, an extra £20 million has been made for housing in Wales and in addition extra resources will be made available to the Welsh Development Agency. There is no reason to believe that employment in Wales will be more adversely affected by these changes than elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Roberts: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the absence of a detailed breakdown of the £12 million suggests that these cuts were imposed upon him directly rather than that they were the result of consultation? Secondly, does he not regard the combination of a reduction in regional employment premium, delayed payment of investment grants and increased employers' national insurance contribution as particularly unfair to assisted areas such as Wales? Is he aware that the resultant unemployment may be considerably more than—possibly three times as great as—the 60,000 projected unemployment talked of by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Finally, what additional funds are to be made available to the Welsh Development Agency, or are they to be a sort of conciliatory gesture?

Mr. Morris: I listened to the hon. Gentleman with great curiosity. I begin to wonder which party he represents because he speaks with a forked tongue. On the one hand he questions the public expenditure cuts, and then he wants increased public expenditure. He must make up his own mind about this.
Nothing was imposed. All this came about as a result of consultations and discussions. I am not prepared at any time to disclose discussions which go on in the Cabinet. The cuts are broken down into particular items pro rata with the English Departments. Given the reputation of the Tory Party for house building in Wales, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman might welcome the substantial increase in money for house building in Wales.

Mr. Anderson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend indicate what is the likely effect on unemployment in the construction industry in Wales which is now in crisis? Secondly, he has fought single-mindedly and very effectively for the M4 as vital to the development of Wales. Will last week's cuts have any effect on the development of the M4?

Mr. Morris: I continue to give, as I have done throughout my period of office, top priority to the building of the M4. I believe that the completion of this long-awaited road is of the utmost importance to the industrial regeneration of South Wales and its future.
As regards unemployment, all I would say is that the estimates I have heard in the past have been grossly exaggerated and that the extra money we have obtained for house building in Wales will certainly help greatly in the construction industry.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I welcome the extra money which is to be made available for housing in Wales, but will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain what this sum is extra to? There were planned cuts on a fixed programme. Is not this merely a restoration of what ought to have been a reasonable level of spending to change the position where one in every seven houses is unfit? Expenditure on housing has to be seen in relation to the overall problem.

Mr. Morris: The cuts were imposed in the down-trend in house building in

Wales as part of the philosophy of Tory Members. We have a tremendous record for new house building in Wales of which I am very proud. The figures for last year rose 140 per cent. on the previous year. This will mean that last year I obtained between £20 million and £30 million extra for house building in Wales, which would bring the figure to £183 million on 1975 prices compared with the Conservative figure of £101 million. Next year there will be an additional £20 million, which will give us, again at 1975 prices, £162 million compared with the Conservative figure of £105 million.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how the massive increase in wage costs which is now to be imposed on Welsh industry by the Chancellor's announcement and which will have a particularly severe effect in the regions can lead to the upturn in industrial development and production which we all so much desire?

Mr. Morris: Our vital need as a country is to ensure that we conquer inflation, and in that I should have thought that we would have the support of the hon. Gentleman. Instead, what he wants on the one hand is a decrease in public expenditure, yet on the other hand he is opposed to cuts.

Rehabilitation Services

Mr. Michael Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning rehabilitation services in South Wales.

Mr. Barry Jones: None recently. I have, however, invited and received comments from interested organisations on the recommendations of the Working Party on Rehabilitation Services in Industrial South Wales.

Mr. Roberts: Does the Minister agree that if the artificial limbs and appliances centre at Cardiff were resited at Rookwood Hospital it would be able to play a great part in such important future developments as biochemical engineering?

Mr. Jones: This is a very important subject and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised it. I have taken note of the working party's recommendation that a new ALAC should be built


at Rookwood Hospital. This is under consideration as part of the review of the National Health Service capital programme for Wales as a whole which will be carried out over the coming months. At present I can mention no starting time and no figure.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRY

Lonrho

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the amount of financial aid to be given to Lonrho; and what are the conditions attached to it.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Alan Williams): The purpose of the £4·9 million is to save 1,800 jobs in special development areas. The main conditions provide that it is secured and repayable in equal instalments from January 1979. It is interest-free up to the end of 1977: thereafter interest is payable at the rate of 10 per cent per annum until January 1981 and at 12 per cent. per annum for the remaining two years. I understand that the workers involved welcome the outcome.

Mr. Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend understand that we would all accept the need to preserve jobs, especially in a development area? Will he also understand that the terms which he has outlined are not sufficient to satisfy many Labour Members? Does he not appreciate that we are dealing with a firm which is the very epitome of the ugly and greedy face of capitalism? Why do not the Government take a considerable equity share in this company rather than allow themselves to be subjected to the kind of terms that my hon. Friend has announced to the House today?

Mr. Williams: Obviously I looked at all possibilities when we were considering the proposal. Brentford Nylons was available on the market from February. The only meaningful offer to come forward was that from Lonhro. In those circumstances we felt that, in view of the alternative capital commitment which would be required for the co-operative venture which was suggested but which never came forward—we estimated that it would cost at least £12 million and

probably nearer £15 million—this was the most appropriate and cheapest way of saving jobs.

Mr. Adley: We realise that many Socialists prefer unemployment to capitalist jobs, but will the Minister of State support the view of Mr. Joe Wright, the convener at the Brentford Nylons factory at Cramlington, who greatly welcomed the Lonhro intervention and the Government assistance and reject what Mr. Wright called the "ill-informed criticism" of Members of Parliament and others who are concerned only to ventilate their own dogmatic views regardless of the effect on other people's jobs?

Mr. Williams: In view of the developments of the past few weeks, it is understandable that hon. Members would be concerned about this proposition. It is helpful that as many of the facts as possible should be brought out. That is why I welcome this Question, because it enables me to explain more fully to my colleagues, and indeed to all hon. Members, why I made the recommendation that I did.

Mr. Heffer: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is perfectly understandable for workers in any factory who are faced with dismissal to accept and, indeed, clutch at a straw which will save their jobs? The statements made by the shop stewards are perfectly understandable in the circumstances. Would my hon. Friend not also agree, however, that Labour Party policy over the years has been that, where public money of this kind is to be used, an attempt should be made to take equity shares so that the Government and the community at large get something back from the public money which is put in? Does my hon. Friend understand that no one is opposing the saving of jobs but that the Government should have done something about taking over the company?

Mr. Williams: I appreciate my hon. Friend's reference to equity participation, but in this case what was needed was a short-term infusion of capital to enable management expertise to be obtained and to get correct marketing links. We believe that the procedure we followed was the best and the most inexpensive way to do it.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Pay Increments

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will have discussions with the Civil Service regarding its incremental salary increases being voluntarily included within the 4+ per cent. maximum permitted by the new incomes policy.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Charles R. Morris): No, Sir.
As we have already made clear, civil servants will continue to be subject to the same incomes restraint as applies to the rest of the community. This allows incremental systems which do not add to the pay bill to continue. In the circumstances, I can see no useful basis for discussions as suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Renton: Is it not correct to say that many in the public sector can and do receive annual increments on top of their pay settlements? Would it not have been much fairer if in the private and public sectors such annual increments were considered to be part of the pay policy rather than payable on top of it?

Mr. Morris: The point I wish to reiterate is that the Civil Service is treated in precisely the same way as employees in the private sector. The policy has been laid down by the Government and endorsed by the Trades Union Congress.

Pensions

Mr. Wrigglesworth: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement about Civil Service pensions.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on Monday 19th July.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he not agree that it would have been outrageous to have given way to some 'f the more extreme demands from the Opposition Benches about public service pensions when the pledges given to the public servants were introduced by the previous Government and endorsed by this House?

Will my hon. Friend accept the gratitude of public servants for the fact that the pledges given by the present and previous Governments have been upheld, and will he also resist the more extreme demands for cuts in Civil Service manpower which are made by some people and which have been bandied around in the Press recently?

Mr. Morris: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. Gratitude is not a quality which Ministers in the Civil Service Department encounter too often. I emphasise my hon. Friend's point when he said that the proposals of the Government with regard to index-linking of public service pensions brought no more than justice to that group of pensioners.

Mr. Rost: Will the hon. Gentleman say what proportion of the Government's public expenditure cuts will be achieved in the Civil Service?

Mr. Morris: The Government indicated in the White Paper this year that they were seeking to economise on administration to the extent of £140 million. It is hoped that a public statement on that figure will be made in the nottoo-distant future.

Dispersal (Glasgow)

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the progress made in the programme to disperse Civil Service jobs to Glasgow.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: As I told the hon. Member on 10th May, the Departments concerned are continuing to make good progress with detailed planning for the moves that have been announced, and which are due to take place for the Ministry of Overseas Development in 1980 and for the Ministry of Defence in 1982 to 1984.

Mr. Taylor: In view of the desperate unemployment situation in Scotland, can the Minister give a clear assurance that at his meeting with civil servants tomorrow he will not agree to any delay in the transfer of the Ministry of Defence to Glasgow? In view of the repeated rumours and uncertainty, can he say when a contract will be placed for the construction of the new MOD building and when the jobs will start coming?

Mr. Morris: It is expected that construction at East Kilbride will begin by the end of 1977 and at the St. Enoch site by the end of 1979. The MOD department at the St. Enoch site in Glasgow will be one of the largest buildings in Scotland. Bearing in mind that these are major projects which require careful planning and large-scale construction work, all of this must inevitably take some time.

Mr. Stan Crowther: Will my hon. Friend accept that there are many parts in the English regions which are desperately in need of this kind of employment and which were completely ignored in the Hardman Report? Will he assure me that next time dispersal is considered it will be carried out on a more realistic and less prejudiced basis so that the smaller centres as distinct from big cities may have a share?

Mr. Morris: I cannot accept that the Hardman Committee proceeded on a prejudiced basis. I recognise my hon. Friend's legitimate claim to speak on behalf of South Yorkshire, and that is an area to which we are giving attention at present, but when he asks me to ensure that the regions are borne in mind I can assure him that they are very much borne in mind. Indeed, I am a regional Member myself.

Mrs. Bain: Does the Minister deny that the reluctance of civil servants to move to Scotland is partly because many employees would lose the London weighting allowance and the cost of living is high in Scotland? Is he aware that some of us believe that the answer is for Scotland to have its own Civil Service, thereby saving the cost of civil servants travelling up and down from Scotland to London?

Mr. Morris: The fragmentation of the Civil Service would not be helpful either to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or to the people of Scotland.

Civil Service College, Edinburgh

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the future of the Civil Service College in Edinburgh.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: In so far as consultations with the National Staff Side have not been completed. I am not

yet able to announce a decision on the future of the Edinburgh centre.

Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend accept from one who goes as guest lecturer frequently to this college that there is high morale and there are high-quality staff who feel that they are doing a good job? Can he say how the Prime Minister, when he mets the National Staff Side tomorrow, will explain that the Government can apparently find resources for a huge Edinburgh Assembly and yet have to close down a vital Civil Service college, the only one outside the London area?

Mr. Morris: I fully endorse my hon. Friend's eulogy of the contribution made by the staff at the Edinburgh college. They make a first-class contribution. In reply to my hon. Friend's request that I should explain how the Prime Minister will react to any points which the National Staff Side may make tomorrow in the discussions which he is to have with it. I can only say that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is quite capable of presenting his own case on such occasions.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the college in Edinburgh is to get the "chop"? It so, how can he justify this? It is the only Civil Service college outside London and the South-East, and it is doing a splendid job. Why is it being chopped in favour of larger establishments in London?

Mr. Morris: As I say, I cannot give an answer at this stage because the consultations with the National Staff Side are proceeding. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not interpret every such proposal in the context of nationalist sentiments. To suggest that the Civil Service College in Scotland is wholly Scottish completely misrepresents the situation. It does not cater exclusively or wholly for Scottish civil servants.

Mr. Watt: Does not the Minister recognise that his continued complacency is not good enough? It is high time that he ended the uncertainty among the staff at this excellent college.

Mr. Morris: I find it difficult to accept the hon. Gentleman's criticism that I have been complacent in this matter. At


this stage, we are not making any announcement or general statement on the matter.

Mr. Rifkind: Will not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that it would be ironic if, at a time when the Government are bringing forward proposals for an Assembly which will require its own civil servants, they were simultaneously to axe the civil servants north of the Watford Gap?

Mr. Morris: I do not accept that there is a contradiction in policy. There is a Civil Service College in Edinburgh. It is doing a first-class job and it is staffed by first-class people, but it does not cater wholly or exclusively for Scottish civil servants.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Working Conditions

Mr. Canavan: asked the Lord President of the Council what steps were taken to ameliorate working conditions of hon. Members and staff of the House of Commons during the recent heat-wave.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Before the hot spell began, major improvements in the ventilation system had already been carried out, including a new system in the police mess, and air conditioning had been provided in the Members' and Strangers' Cafeterias. New ceiling fans were installed in the kitchens, other fans were reallocated and 200 extra fans were borrowed from the RAF. The police, custodians and staff of the Refreshment Department were permitted to work in shirt-sleeves. I am sure the whole House will be grateful to all the staff for providing their normal service during what were often very difficult conditions.

Mr. Canavan: Is there any truth in the report that some of the new electric fans are imported from Japan? If that is so, is it not a disgraceful discrimination against British industry? Would it not be a good idea to bring Parliament into the twentieth century by not forcing the Badge Messengers to wear penguin suits or Mr. Speaker and his staff to wear wigs?

Mr. Foot: I agree with my hon. Friend. I shall deal with the jackets worn by the Doorkeepers on the next Question. I agree that there should be a more radical treatment of the whole question, but that would involve major changes in the building itself.
The fan in my office was made in England; I checked on that. I also checked on where the other fans came from and I found that about 14 came from Japan, but that was out of a total of about 200, the overwhelming majority of which came from this country. We took steps to get them as speedily as possible to deal with the situation.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, as is the practice in Commonwealth legislatures, designing a dignified attire which would be suited to sub-tropical conditions when they occur?

Mr. Foot: That is the subject of the next Question, which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten).

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does my right hon. Friend think that it would be more constructive towards helping staff in this noble establishment if a way could be found of telling them when they will have to work many hours of overtime, which they do without previous notice? Is there not some way of making the system more flexible instead of expecting the staff to go on hour after hour in conditions which are intolerable in a building which is not covered by the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act?

Mr. Foot: There are many improvements that could be made in the conditions of those who work so well for the House. There are also improvements that could be made in providing more information when possible. I shall make further inquiries about the matter.

Mr. Beith: Does the Leader of the House agree that the problem is not primarily one of dress, because it does not arise mainly in the Chamber or in the Members' Lobby? Is he aware that even if hon. Members and staff had conducted proceedings in Committee and their offices and had worked in the nude they would still have found it too hot


in the recent weather? Does he not agree that the problem would be much reduced if we conducted most of our business in the cooler part of the year and took our holidays in the hotter part?

Mr. Foot: These are questions that can be considered by the new Procedure Committee. But I am not sure whether the Committee will be able to solve that problem.

Staff (Summer Attire)

Mr. Marten: asked the Lord President of the Council what steps have been taken to provide more suitable summer attire for the staff of the House, particularly the Badge Messengers and Doorkeepers.

Mr. Foot: Arrangements are being made for light-weight jackets to be provided in future for the Dorkeepers.

Mr. Marten: I am sure that the staff will very much appreciate that next year. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the change-over to summer attire is brought in when it becomes warm rather than on a certain date, as is the case with central heating in the Civil Service and on British Rail, which has a fixed date for starting and ending? Will he ensure that the system is flexible?

Mr. Foot: I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point into consideration. I am in favour of as much free choice as possible for the staff.

Mr. George Cunningham: Has my right hon. Friend entertained the thought that being responsible for the business of the House and either breaking up or preventing the breaking up of the United Kingdom gives him enough to do without his having to bother about where a particular fan was made or what clothing should be worn by members of the staff? Will he indicate that he is prepared to give up the chairmanship of the Services Committee, which has nothing to do with him, and have that post taken over by a Back Bencher?

Mr. Foot: I am willing to consider that suggestion. My hon. Friend would make a good candidate for that post. At the moment I have the job, and I am sure that the House will be gratified to know that I was not directly responsible

for the way in which the fans were operating.

Mr. Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why there is all this fuss about summer attire? Is it not the case that if people want to be cool they should keep their normal clothing on rather than take it off?

Mr. Foot: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is one of the few hon. Members of the House who is exactly the same all the year round.

DEVOLUTION

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Lord President of the Council how many letters he has now received from the general public and organisations, respectively, on the Government's devolution proposals.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): Since publication of the White Paper my right hon. Friend has received 164 letters from the general public and 41 from organisations, including letters addressed to the Constitution Unit.

Mr. Taylor: Will the Minister accept that opinion in Scotland is swinging against devolution as people begin to realise how much it will cost and the problems involved? Is it not an outrage that, at a time when a cut is being imposed for home helps and school crossing patrol attendants, an extra £10 million a year is to be spent on this silly bureaucratic Assembly?

Mr. Smith: I do not accept anything that the hon. Gentleman says. He must not confuse his own sincerely-held opinions with general opinion in Scotland. We made promises in our election manifesto which we are determined to fulfil.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: Will my hon. Friend accept that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is the last person to whom he should listen about the opinion of the people of Scotland? Does he accept that the people of Scotland want devolution and an Assembly and that they will have that Assembly before this Parliament is finished?

Mr. Smith: I agree with all that my hon. Friend has said.

Mrs. Bain: Does the Minister agree that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) would be better placed in a museum of antiquities? When it comes to assessing the needs of the people of Scotland and their problems, does he not agree with the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) who said that Scotland's oil means a lot to Scotland and little to England?

Mr. Smith: The future of the hon. Member for Cathcart rests with the electorate and not with me. Oil will be of great benefit to the United Kingdom as a whole and to Scotland in particular. I reject any under-assessment of it by the hon. Lady and her colleagues.

Mr. Dalyell: What is more important to our constituents, the local authority personal services such as home helps or yet another additional tier of government in Edinburgh?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend can take many items of expenditure and make false comparisons. We are concerned with having a good level of social services but also that democratic changes should be made. The vast majority of my hon. Friend's colleagues, particularly those representing Scottish constituencies, strongly support devolution.

Mr. Gow: Is the Minister aware that it is not only in Scotland but in England that the Government's devolution proposals are viewed with increasing distaste? By what lawful authority are the Government engaging in the expenditure of public funds on the Royal High School in Edinburgh?

Mr. Smith: I am as good a judge as the hon. Gentleman in these matters, especially of opinion north of the border. He may recall—he can look it up in Hansard—that the expenditure on the Contingency Fund was announced to Parliament before Easter without dissent from the Opposition.

Mr. Joseph Dean: Is my hon. Friend aware that the figure of £10 million which was mentioned earlier is probably too small? Is he also aware that there will be bitter resistance to devolution from

some hon. Members on the Labour Benches if it means a diminution of resources in the public sector in the English regions to finance this over-expensive and unnecessary legislation for Scotland and Wales?

Mr. Smith: I can assure my hon. Friend that our devolution proposals in no way mean a diminution of public services to other parts of the United Kingdom. We shall take care to make sure that that is so. I am sure that that is understood by my hon. Friend, who is rightly anxious about the area he represents. Once it becomes clear that this is not an attempt to reallocate resources, he will perhaps, like many of his hon. Friends, take a different view of devolution.

DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL

(Allocation of Time)

Report [22nd July] of the business Committee to be now considered.—[Mr. Foot.]

Report considered accordingly.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Report, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee).

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. JAMES HAMILTON and Mr. TED GRAHAM were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Question accordingly agreed to.

The following is the Report of the Business Committee:
That the allotted day which under the Order [20th July] is given to the proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading be allotted as shown in the Table below; and subject to the provisions of that Order, each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at at the time specified in the second column of that Table.

TABLE


Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


Consideration
10 p.m.


Third Reading
11 p.m.

OFFICIAL REPORT

Mr. Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You were good enough previously to take a personal interest in this matter. Are you aware that the Official Report of the proceedings of the House at its last sitting has not yet been printed? May I express the hope that we shall not have a repetition of the delay which occurred in respect of the last major business affecting Northern Ireland which was considered in the House?

Mr. Speaker: I have taken note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I hope that the authorities responsible will do their best to help.

Orders of the Day — DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL

[ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

APPEALS AGAINST CLASSIFICATION

'(1) If any person being an employer of persons carrying out work to which sections 7, 8 or 9 apply or any trade union recognised for the purposes of collective bargaining by any such employer shall dispute whether any work is dock work which falls within Part I of Schedule 3 and not within Part 11 of that Schedule, he may give notice to the Secretary of State.

(2) Any notice under this section shall state—

(a) the name and address of the person giving the same and the facts entitling him to give such notice;
(b) the nature of the dispute identifying the work in question and the facts relating thereto in sufficient detail to enable a reference to be made hereunder including the address or description of the premises at which such work is carried on;

and a copy of such notice shall be sent by the person giving the same to the Board and to all other persons being employers and trade unions as aforesaid and in any way concerned or interested in the subject matter of the dispute.

(3) Unless the dispute shall be withdrawn or otherwise settled the Secretary of State shall refer the dispute for decision to the Central Arbitration Committee of the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service. No report or recommendaton shall be made by the Board and no Order under section 1I of this Act may he made by the Secretary of State until a dispute relevant to such report or Order and referred to the Central Administration Committee hereunder has been finally decided'. —[Mr. Hicks.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.34 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hicks: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take new Clause 5—Reference to Tribunal for settlement of certain disputes.

Mr. Hicks: The purpose behind New Clause 1 is very clear. It seeks to introduce an appeal procedure in relation to any report or recommendation which may be made by the National Dock Labour


Board under Clauses 7, 8 or 9. Accordingly, it will cover any work which it is proposed to classify as dock work. The appeal procedure would relate only to whether the work fell within Part I of Schedule 3 and not within Part II of that schedule.
The Bill is one of the most controversial measures the Government have sought to introduce this Session. It has caused both anger and annoyance. It has been suggested that it originated as a pay-off to the dockers' section of the Transport and General Workers' Union, and to Mr. Jack Jones in particular, for its support for the £6-a-week pay limit in 1975.
We all know the history. The introduction of the Bill was delayed, and the reasons were plain to all. Its provisions not only aroused the hostility of virtually all industrial and commercial interests but also met fierce opposition from certain other trade unions and other sections of the TGWU. We on this side of the House had thought that the Government would introduce the Bill before Christmas 1975. It eventually obtained its Second Reading on 10th February this year. That was followed by a Committee stage of 36 sittings.
During the Second Reading debate both the former Secretary of State for Employment and the present Secretary of State made a number of references to what would and would not constitute dock work as defined in Part I of Schdule 3. Ministers gave examples of circumstances in which they did not envisage an extension of dock work, I presume in an attempt to reassure those employed in associated activities such as warehousing and cold stores, or in the transport sector, that their jobs were not in jeopardy. Likewise, both the present Secretary of State and his predecessor made reassuring gestures about the position of smaller ports.
Those of us who served on the Committee waited for the Minister to table his own amendments to give tangible expression to the reassuring remarks made on Second Reading. I acknowledge that it is not easy to express in a satisfactory form of words those thoughts, which cover many differing and sensitive circumstances. But, regrettably, the Government's response was very limited. We

had an amendment involving a reference back by the Secretary of State to the National Dock Labour Board. That limited amendment now forms Clause 6(3), under which arangements for classifying dock work can be reinvestigated, but the terms of reference are confined to ports and the docks which fall within the ambit of the 1967 dock labour scheme.
The additional provision which I seek to introduce by means of this new clause would cover Clauses 7, 8 and 9—in other words, the new situation affected by the Bill. That, of course, involves a twofold extension—namely, a major extension in terms of job description, that is to say, what in future could constitute dock work and, secondly, the five-mile cargo handling zone extending from all coasts and within tidal limits in which these job descriptions will apply.
I think that it would be wrong to minimise the social and economic implications of those two extensions. Indeed, if one takes the constituency that I represent—almost 700 square miles in the non-industrial county of Cornwall—such is the configuration of the county, with its large number of deeply penetrating inlets, that virtually the whole county except for the sheep and hill cattle on Bodmin Moor and the area to the east will be located within the dockers' cargo handling zone.
I am sure that that was not the original intention of the authors of the Bill, and I find it a totally ludicrous situation. It is not as though the small West Country ports such as Padstow, Teignmouth and Exmouth are in competition with or are taking trade from the larger United Kingdom ports. They are in business because they are efficient, and they serve essentially local hinterlands that are largely rural in character.
As was repeatedly said in Committee, the provisions of the Bill—and I think that this was freely admitted by Government Bank Benchers—are not designed largely to meet the non-urban industrialised parts of the United Kingdom. But even in that latter situation surely it is only right and proper that, in a democratic society, there should exist a statutory appeal procedure. The clause in my name represents an attempt to build a simple appeal procedure into the process relating to any report or recommendation


that may be made by the National Dock Labour Board under Clauses 7, 8 or 9, and accordingly will cover any work that it is proposed to classify as dock work.
In practice that means—and I should have thought it a most reasonable suggestion in the context both of industrial relations and of the efficiency and economic performance of our ports and docks, should as well as being a fundamental right in a free society—that should any employer or employers of persons, or any trade union recognised for the purposes of collective bargaining, dispute whether any work is dock work that falls within Part I of Schedule 3 and not within Part II of that schedule, he or they may give notice to the Secretary of State. In such circumstances the Secretary of State would have to act. He would have to do something.
To begin with, the notice under this provision shall state the name and address of the person and
the nature of the dispute identifying the work in question and the facts relating thereto in sufficient detail to enable a reference to be made hereunder.
If there is still a disagreement with the employer or the union about whether the work should be classified, the appeal goes first to ACAS and, if it cannot be decided, eventually to the Central Arbitration Committee.
3.45 p.m.
What one is attempting to do is to find a procedure designed to avoid industrial conflict, and what I am stating is that if work is to be classified, or is likely to be classified, the parties that will be affected, namely, the employers and the recognised trade unions, shall have the right of appeal, by registering first an objection to the Secretary of State and then appeal to ACAS.
I think that that is a desirable move. Indeed, the point that was repeatedly made in Committee was that the range and opportunity for dispute and controversy—indeed, for conflict—as a result of the Bill becoming an Act will be made much greater. Dockers will be given a statutory right that no group of employees, to the best of my knowledge, has ever had before in the history of this country, and that is the right to claim the work of another group. Therefore, I am arguing that it is essential that some independent body should be involved,

particularly if employers on the one hand and employees on the other, or, indeed, the users of our ports, are to have the necessary confidence if some of the more far-reaching and contentious proposals in the Bill see the light of legislative day.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill would give dockers a statutory right to take over other people's work. Will he develop that argument? Can he say which clause deals with giving a statutory right to registered dock workers to take over the work of other people? I shall be interested to know which part of the Bill says that.

Mr. Hicks: The answer to that is surely that under the terms of the Bill there is no appeal when that situation occurs. In other words, what I am trying to correct is the one-sided nature of the Bill as it appears not only to my hon. Friend but to people outside who do not necessarily belong to a limited section of one major trade union. What I am attempting to get across is that there will be difficulties, particularly in respect of recognition. This is already causing anxiety. There will be conflicts of interest. That is inevitable. There is also the problem that the provisions of the Bill may be extended to small ports.
Finally, let me state my reason for suggesting to the House that ACAS might be the appropriate body to deal with these disputes, and thus the right of appeal. ACAS appears to be very much involved in this kind of area. Much of its work already concerns recognition. Indeed, in recognition disputes—and we discussed this in Committee—it is written into the Employment Protection Act that ACAS can intervene.
Furthermore, when we first had the consultative document in March 1975 it said in paragraph 31 that in the event of any question arising whether any operation fell within the new definition of port transport work it is proposed that that question would be determined by the Central Arbitration Committee of ACAS and that Section 51 of the Docks and Harbour Act 1966 would be repealed.
I appreciate that in Committee we had a short debate, which the Minister of


State answered, whether ACAS should be involved, but on that occasion I did not find the Minister's line of reasoning particularlly convincing. Since then, some of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have also put down their own amendments with regard to the introduction of an appeals procedure. Indeed, New Clause 5 seeks to introduce the reference in certain circumstances to a tribunal process. I have no dispute with my colleagues in this respect. The actual appeal process established is, I believe, of secondary importance to the argument on the principle whether it is desirable to introduce an appeal system.
I should have thought it was not at all unreasonable in a democracy to allow an interested party, whose activities may be recommended for classification as dock work, the statutory right of appeal to an independent body. That is all I ask.

Mr. James Prior: It might be for the convenience of my hon. Friends if I intervene at this stage, not in any way to try to curtail the debate on these important new clauses, but in order to give the Opposition's views on them. They are rather on the lines of those outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) in moving his new clause. He ended his speech by saying that it was the principle of the desirability of the appeal system that he wished to support, rather than any particular method of carrying it out. We fully share his views about that.
There are 48 pages of amendments and new clauses to the Bill. Although a number have been grouped and are concerned with the same point—particularly with small ports, which we can debate under the next series—the guillotine allows totally insufficient time for proper debate. Many matters that we should have liked to discuss will remain undiscussed.
The House of Lords will have a duty to carry out its function as a revising Chamber, so that many of the issues that will not receive proper discussion in this House will be examined carefully and properly discussed in another place. I hope that, if necessary, amendments will be made to the Bill so that we have a

further chance of discussing them in this House later.

Mr. John Prescott: As with the Industrial Relations Bill.

Mr. Prior: It is of great importance not only to the Opposition, but to hon. Members opposite.
I turn straight away to New Clause 1 and New Clause 5, and to New Clause 3 and New Clause 4, which are contained in the next series of amendments, for they go straight to the heart of the Bill. We thought it right to try to concentrate discussion on these new clauses, because so much of the heart of the Bill can be considered within that discussion.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) talked about the Industrial Relations Act and the attitude of the House of Lords to it. After the Government's announcement of cuts in public expenditure and the announcement of record post-war unemployment and with the knowledge that the measures taken by the Government have not had the desired effect on the pound, we are at liberty to ask and should ask why Bills such as this, which are so damaging to confidence abroad, are being introduced and pushed through by the Government.
This is a rotten Bill from start to finish, and our efforts to improve it in Committee and on Report have met with a very lukewarm response from the Government side, although in their hearts Labour Members know as well as we do that the Bill will not accomplish any improvement in relationships in the docks. Indeed, it is years out of date in its application to our transport system. It will create no new jobs. It will actually destroy jobs. It will merely create uncertainty and put the clock back.
Government Members should look at what is happening in Australia. They should note that the Australians are now moving right away from the concept of a national dock labour board. They are moving instead towards proper relationships between employ, r and employee, which is the right way for these matters to be conducted.
The new clauses seek to provide at least some rights of inquiry and appeal for those who will be affected by the Bill. One reason why this is so important is that the Government have deliberately kept the membership of the National Dock Labour Board very narrow. That also applies to the local boards. We hope that, following what was said in Committee, the Government will tell us what they have in mind for the local boards. As we understand it at the moment, local boards will reflect in their composition the same catchment power as is proposed for the national board.
What is important, as we have stressed all through, is that the National Dock Labour Board should take into account the interests of consumers, the interests of users of the port, the interests of workers other than dock workers, and the interests particularly of employers other than dock employers. At the moment the interests are confined one-third as to dock employers and one-third as to dock employees, with another one-third still to be specified, but no detailed specification is given as to its source. Thus the composition of the board is narrow, and that gives rise to a great many fears by both employer; and employees who at the moment are not part of the dock force.

Mr. Loyden: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the argument he presents in relation to the National Dock Labour Board would have been applicable prior to the introduction of the Bill? The situation in the National Dock Labour Board at the moment—at a time before the Bill has become law—is that it is controlled by the employers and the unions representing the docks industry. I cannot for the life of me understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument that the Bill narrows the representation. It extends it for the first time, bringing into the composition of the NDLB interests which hitherto have not been represented on it. If so, is it not a fact that the NDLB will have a more even-handed balance?

Mr. Prior: That may be the hon. Gentleman's idea of even-handedness, but the employers and employees still have a majority, and we are trying to move away from a position in which the dock employers and the dock employees

are in control. We want, instead, to have a position in which other port users and the country as a whole can bring influence to bear upon decisions.
As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, the Bill extends not only the definition of dock work but, by the five-mile corridor and the areas beyond, it extends the cargo-handling zone, and thereby has a much greater impact on the country as a whole. Yet the representation on the board does not match the additional power that the National Dock Labour Board will have. That is one of the reasons why we believe that there should be a resort to a public inquiry, as we propose in New Clause 2, which is not selected, or at least reference to a tribunal for the settlement of certain disputes, as we propose in New Clause 5.
4.0 p.m.
We have very strong reservations about the proposed composition of the National Dock Labour Board, and we made that very clear during the Committee stage. We should like to hear more from the Minister about the composition of the local boards. Not only does the Bill still give enormous power to the National Dock Labour Board and the way that it is constituted, but it goes against existing legislation by which there was a right to a public inquiry before changes were made in the scope of the scheme, and that right to a public inquiry is now done away with. We believe that that must be wrong at a time when there is this vast extension of the scheme.
When he was Secretary of State, the Leader of the House argued that none of this was necessary because the draft scheme would be laid before the House of Commons and, after he had heard the voices here, he would go away, prepare a final scheme and lay that before the House of Commons. But that is not a proper alternative to a public inquiry procedure.
We know what this Government, with a small majority in this place, can do on many matters. We know that the possibility in this House of altering even a draft scheme, let alone a proper scheme, is very small. We do not believe that that gives the rights of protection or rights of objection to any scheme put before any port employers or port users which they have the right to expect.
We know that there will be an increase in demarcation disputes. That is certain to follow from the introduction of the Bill. The cargo-handling zone and the definition of dock work will lead to one dispute after another. It is the main reason why so many unions and union people have been to see hon. Members to complain about the Bill. They know that there will be constant dispute about what is dock work—what in any individual cold store will be termed dock work and what will come outside. All these are matters where the right to go to a tribunal for the settlement of certain disputes will be required. This is to be denied, and it is a reprehensible step for the Government to take.
I come to the effect of the extension of the main register and what that will do. When the Bill was first introduced, the main drift of the arguments from the Government Benches was that it was likely to provide additional jobs for dock workers. To start with, the dockers construed it as an opportunity for them to take other people's jobs. As the Bill has been going through Committee, as other unions have got themselves organised and as hon. Members have been able to put their spoke in, the opportunities for dockers to take other people's jobs have been greatly reduced. Now they will be able to take other people's jobs only as people leave the industry through retirement or natural wastage.
In a cold store where part of the store is designated as dock work, the people working there will become dockers. They will go, first, on the extension register and then, after two years, on the main register. As members of the existing work force leave, their places will be taken by registered dockers, which means that this legislation will introduce into that cold store a completely foreign element in the work force. We see again the problems that this will create. But any idea that this will give large numbers of dockers other people's jobs has been shown during the Committee stage not to be the case.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) began to realise this as the Committee stage went on. From being a very fervent supporter of the Bill, he became lukewarm about it as he saw the opportunities for dockers

to pinch other people's jobs not being there. It means that, as a result of the Bill, dockers will wish to bring to tribunals instances of jobs which they think they should have but which they are being denied. That is another reason why some form of tribunal of inquiry will be necessary if the Bill is to function as it is meant to.
The main problem for the dockers has always been the existence of too many dockers, especially in the Port of London, for too few jobs. The Chairman of the Port of London Authority said about the Bill in his report for the year ending 31st December 1975:
I hope very much that the Bill does not lead to differences between the various unions involved in the kind of activity which is covered by the Bill, or even to differences between the members of unions affected by it. It is my belief that even if the Bill works as originally it was intended to work, it will not add in any significant way to job opportunities for registered dock workers.
That was the Chairman of the Port of London Authority speaking with all his experience of this problem. He was saying, in effect, that there will not be additional jobs for dockers and that there was a surplus of dockers in the Port of London Authority. The average daily surplus in the first quarter of 1976 in the PLA area has been about 1,250 dockers. That is a situation with which we cannot go on for long.

Mr. James Johnson: In view of what the Shadow Minister of Labour has just said, does he not think that it was dishonourable and disreputable, week after week and month after month in Committee, to whip up what he now accepts to be a totally false impression? By their speeches in Committee. Opposition Members scared people outside the House. Now he says that there has been no basis for this scaremongering about jobs being taken by those whom I describe as "old-fashioned" dockers, let alone by those men whom he now alleges could have been and, according to him some weeks ago, would have been—made into dock labour.

Mr. Prior: I believe that unless we had pointed out these matters, a great many of these jobs would have been taken by dockers. There is no doubt that in Committee the Government had to


shift their around considerably. Amendment No. 266 made the point abundantly clear in Committee.
In any event, it is no good the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) saying that. He should read what his hon. Friend the Member for Garston said in Committee. He should go and talk to dockers in the Port of London—I do not know about Hull—and he would soon find that they were after other people's jobs. An article in the port newspaper said as much. That is what it was all about.

Mr. James Johnson: This is quite disreputable. I am now asked to look at speeches made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden). My hon. Friend said—it is on the record—that the dockers were not out to get these jobs. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were saying quite the opposite week after week. Now he is disowning all of that.

Mr. Prior: In that case, I wonder why the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, to which the hon. Member belongs, was so worried about the Bill, so worried that the hon. Gentleman had to ask to be on the Committee so as to protect the interests of his members. If those interests were never in doubt, what was he doing on the Committee? He is not generally the sort of person who would like to go on a Committee if he did not have something to say. His hon. Friend the Member for Garston was also on the Committee. They both wanted to be on so that they could keep an eye on those who represented the dockers. They were worried. We read in the newspapers almost daily of deputations going to see the Secretary of State. The Transport and Salaried Staffs Association is in the process of taking a deputation to see the Secretary of State about something or other. We read last week of a deputation from Nottingham.
I hear daily of Labour Members who are still dissatisfied with the way in which the Bill is being pushed through the House. Some Labour Members believe that it is not looking after the interests of small groups in cold stores and warehouses. They are saying that changes will have to be made in the Lords. They

say "Of course you cannot expect us to say so here, but we will get their Lordships to do this for us." We hear that every day. The hon. Gentleman knows that this is true. The whole purpose of the Committee stage has been to try to protect groups, including unions such as the GMWU, against the intrusions of the dockers. That is why we want this tribunal to deal with the situation which could arise when the Bill begins to operate.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson), although he sought to get on the Committee, achieved practically nothing once he was there? Would it not be a pity if he did not now tell us what he would like to do to improve the Bill?

Mr. Prior: Far be it from me to wish to stop the hon. Member from making his views known and telling us what improvements he thinks are still necessary. When he was on the Committee it seemed that he was prepared to accept everything that the Government said so long as he could influence and change the Government's mind behind the scenes. I suppose that that is a perfectly legitimate tactic. For the hon. Gentleman to say at this stage that he has always been satisfied with the Bill seems to be stretching the imagination rather further than ought to be expected.
The Bill is a better Bill now. The dockers will not now be able to take over the jobs that they once thought would be theirs. There is a surplus of dockers in London which has to be dealt with.
It may be that the dockers will wish to have the right to appear before a tribunal in the same way as we seek to give others that right. The Government have put forward a mad way of trying to deal with the problem.
This is what is at the root of our objections to the Bill. There is the problem of the narrowness of the membership of the National Dock Labour Board, the difficulty over the scheme being laid before the House without proper opportunity for amendment, the problem of there being no right to a public inquiry and no right to take to a tribunal a dispute between the board and any other person, be it employer


or trade union. All of this must be wrong in what is a complex, highly emotional and difficult situation.
4.15 p.m.
We are trying to put into the Bill this right of appeal. I cannot see why the Government are unable to accept this clause. What is the objection to allowing this right of appeal? Why cannot the Government accept that the individual has a right to object? This seems a perfectly sensible way to proceed. It would relieve a great deal of anxiety. The Secretary of State probably knows that at the moment many firms are moving out of the five-mile corridor. They are no longer prepared to stay there. They are certainly not prepared to invest there. A headline in one of the property papers reads:
Dock Bill dampens building enthusiasm of ports".
The Bill is affecting investment and the jobs of dockers and non-dockers.
Our new clauses will do something to allay anxieties in the industry, but they cannot go the whole way. The only way to relieve anxieties entirely is to drop the Bill altogether. I hope that it is not too late for three or four Labour Members to recognise that this Bill is destroying employment and investment and is damaging the country. It will put up costs and prices. I hope that some Labour Members will recognise this and vote against this wicked Bill tonight. They could start by voting for this clause, which will at least give some chance for the employer, the trade union or individual to take a case against the National Dock Labour Board when it is introducing a scheme he considers to be detrimental to his interests.

Mr. Loyden: The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) has again shown the inconsistency which has been part of his behaviour throughout Committee. He has been responsible for stirring up the minds of dockers and other workers about the nature of this Bill. The one thing about which he has been consistent is the contradictory nature of his statements. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) argued that the Bill was intended to take over work for the benefit of dockers. Yet the right hon.

Gentleman says that the Bill will do no such thing.
The references of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft to dock workers have been consistent throughout. He used two phrases which indicated his feelings about dock workers. It is unfortunate that sometimes he cannot even bear them. He referred to the people in cold stores as an alien element. That is a commendable way to refer to workers! How alien are registered dock workers in cold storage work? The whole of the cold storage work in London is carried out by registered dock workers. That is how alien they are in that industry. In many ports throughout the country such work has always been done by registered dock workers. There is no question of their being alien workers in the cold storage industry.
In other ports, such as Liverpool, cold storage work is not registered work, nor will it be when the Bill is enacted. The charge that the Bill is intended to take away work traditionally carried out by others and to give it to registered dock workers is absolutely untrue. Certainly nowhere in the Bill is there any evidence that that is so.

Mr. Giles Shaw: On the specific question of cold stores and dockers, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the traditional trades with which dockers have been associated, such as the refrigerated meat trade coming into ports, have declined rapidly and that what the cold storage industry represents, certainly since 1967, is the dramatic growth of convenience foods and other foodstuffs not associated with transit through ports?

Mr. Loyden: I accept that there has been a decline in that trade, but there has not been a decline in cold storage as such. There may be a change in the industry generally but there is certainly still a great deal of that dock work in and around the ports.
The charge laid against the Government about the Bill is that it will allow various dangerous developments. Right hon. and hon. Members went to a most extravagant extent in Committee to point out the dangers of the Bill. We even had to listen to the argument that it was similar to an invasion of the Vikings and the Danes. That is the sort of extravagant language that


was used. We were even told that it may be a question of dockers taking over the jobs of air hostesses at various airports and of fixing aeroplanes with sledgehammers. That is the exaggerated extravagant language that has been used about the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Lowestoft also said that the Bill would not end disputes. The only argument that I have heard Opposition Members put forward in this regard about the docks industry is that it is never in anything other than a state of dispute, that it is always on strike. When one listens to them, one wonders how ships ever became loaded. Their argument has been that the present position has been responsible for all of the long disputes in the docks industry. However, when a Bill is presented that brings about a definition of dock work, which is involved in many disputes, many hon. Members say that the industrial relations situation will worsen. However, they have already argued that it could not possibly be any worse than it has been in the past.
It has been argued that at the drop of a hat dock workers will hit the gate and go into dispute. But Opposition Members are now saying that the Bill will increase the number of disputes. I should have thought that even Opposition Members would accept that that peaked off some years ago.
The Bill deals with one of the main causes of disputes in dockland. Certainly in the last decade, and particularly in the last five years, the difficulty has been the lack of definition of dock work. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft has argued that what we ought to have are tribunals. Surprise, surprise—the method by which this problem is dealt with today is tribunals. The right hon. Gentleman is arguing, therefore, that we ought to continue with the problems that exist in dockland on the basis of continuing with the present method of tribunals. That is also a contradiction.
The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the narrowness of the National Dock Labour Board. For the first time since its establishment as a board, there are outside interests on it. The right hon. Gentlaman said that this does not go far enough and that this will not meet the need for a better balance in the composition of the board.
However, one cannot have it both ways. If the present Government have seen, for the first time, the need to extend the influence and responsibilities of the board by including representation that will be recommended by the CBI and the TUC, one cannot argue that the board is being narrowed. I do not know whether there will be a better balance, but there will certainly be an alteration in the composition of the board. The right hon. Gentleman's arguments are absolutely irrelevant in that sense to what the Bill is about.
There is no indication that any of the measures to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred in the Bill or in either of the new clauses would benefit the situation in the docks industry. If nothing else, the Government intend to deal with what has been a problem over the whole post-war history of the docks. That is that there has not been a proper definition of dock work, a fact which has resulted in confrontations between dockers and between dockers and other people.
When one considers the tests that will be applied under the Bill as to classification of work, one begins to wonder where the right hon. Gentleman gets the idea that it would be a very simple matter to put into operation an extended scheme purely by the very simple issue of classification of work. The tests that the Government have applied will mean in effect that any traditional work that has been carried out by non-registered dock workers will continue to be performed in that way, and there are the tests of location and the 1967 situation. All sorts of tests will have to be applied for a registered scheme to operate. They provide for the industry all the safeguards that are necessary.
I believe, therefore, that the new clauses are unnecessary and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will resist them.

Mr. David Price: In speaking to the new clauses, I shall be speaking on the basis that the Second Reading principle of the Bill has been accepted. If I am fortunate enough to be called to speak on Third Reading, I shall argue against the whole Bill. Within the rules of order, I think it it appropriate


that I accept the Second Reading principle. Therefore, I hope that what I am proposing now will be regarded by the Government, and by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), as an attempt to try to improve the Government's arrangements as agreed on Second Reading.
The first point that is very important, and a great absence from the Bill, is the failure by the Government to spell out in the Bill the powers and composition of the local boards. In Committee the Secretary of State, when he was Minister of State, went a long way towards agreeing with me that the real operating arm of the reconstituted National Dock Labour Board would be the local board. If more power is given to local boards, a great deal less need be decided at the centre and more can be allowed to follow local practices.
I believe that all hon Members who served on the Committee will agree that there has been deployed before us a wide variety of practices as to the classification of dock work and local custom between one port and another. There is the famous question of riggers. We have had different treatment of riggers in different ports. In some ports they have been classified as registered dockers and in others they have not. Therefore, if the Government are to ask the House to accept the scheme—it is only in embryo now, because it will depend upon the Orders made under the Bill for each port—it is essential that the Government should tell us their intentions towards local dock labour boards.
I have tabled a later new clause, which we shall probably not have an opportunity to discuss, which spells out the suggested powers of the local boards. If the composition and the extent of the powers of the local dock labour boards are not spelled out, so it becomes more necessary to write into the Bill something along the lines of either of these new clauses. My enthusiasm for New Clause 1, in particular, would be less if the Government were prepared to say at a later stage that they were prepared to move an amendment or a new clause that spelled out the power and composition of the local boards.

Mr. Loyden: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that the rôle of the local boards will be very much determined by the rôle of the new national board, which in that sense will have a major responsibility? While I agree that there ought to be some indication of the rôle of local, boards, by and large it, will be dependent on the changed nature of the national board, which in turn is bound to influence the whole rôle of the local boards.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Price: The hon. Member will observe the proposals in my new clause later on the Order Paper. We should write into the Bill exactly the same composition for local Boards as is proposed for national boards. The hon. Member for Garston praised the Government for introducing a third element at National Dock Labour Board level. In my new clause I suggest that exactly the same composition should be reflected in local boards.
If the definition of dock work and of cargo handling zones is to be acceptable—and it must be, if we have not been wasting our time entirely on this Bill—it is surely right that both representatives of the employers and trade unions so affected should be brought in. We are agreed on that point. We had the famous case of the Banana Seven at Barry in Glamorgan, raised more than once in Standing Committee. The employers concerned were no part of the dock employers. That is a crucial lesson for us. We must ensure that at national level, and equally at local level, for the benefit of both employers and trade unions, the definition is sufficiently broad to include all those who might be brought in.
I do not have all that much enthusiasm for New Clause 1, but in the absence of the Government's spelling out something about the constitution and composition of local boards, I believe that the new clause becomes that bit more important. It is needed as an independent element against the traditional dock employers and the traditional dock unions.
There is the wider argument about a further interest—the ultimate consumers of the docks industry. These are the people who will determine how well our


docks work. This interest is written to some extent at national level, and I want to see it written in at local level. I believe that this is an entirely reasonable proposal.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): Since the hon. Member has referred to the Barry Seven in this context I would ask him why the right of public inquiry was not used and did not provide any solution whatsoever? Why would that situation be better than the situation which exists in the Bill, which would have safeguarded the jobs of the people involved?

Mr. Price: The Secretary of State must not press me too much about my preferred solution as I shall stray out of order. Getting the local boards right would ensure that the employers of the Banana Seven would have been represented when, as I understand it, in fact they were not. My enthusiasm for New Clause 1 would be less if something along these lines was incorporated into the Bill. The new clause is a fall-back position in default of setting out in the Bill the composition and powers of the local boards.
I do not regard this as a matter of party ideology. It is an important piece of machinery which would improve the Bill. There are other matters about which outside interests feel that the right of public inquiry would be appropriate. I share the view of the hon. Member for Garston in that I am not a great chap for going to law. I share his reluctance for using the talents of our hon. and learned Friends. For a start, they are rather expensive to use. However, I acknowledge that the fact that one can litigate and go to arbitration as a last resort has a value. That value is not so much in the frequent use of these powers as in the fact that it represents a fallback position.
It is clear that many people feel that we should write powers such as this into the Bill. The Government would not be giving much away if they conceded that. They would just be providing a bit of lubricant on sorely abrased feelings. If one takes the problem of spelling out in practice and detail the new cargo handling zones and the new definitions in terms of geography and functions, there is surely

a need to have some machinery to oil the wheels.
The Secretary of State made much in Committee of the fact that the Bill as drafted will ensure that no scheme for any part of the country can come forward until he has brought it forward to this House and it has been debated and prayed against. But the trouble with that procedure is that Orders in this House have to be rejected or accepted in toto. They are not amenable to arguments and cannot be amended. The only thing the Opposition can do is to try to persuade the Government to withdraw them. That does not happen often, and Ministers who withdraw Orders are not very popular with those who manage Government business.
In other words, it is not a satisfactory machinery and the Government will find that if they do not write into the Bill powers along the lines of my new clause when the time comes to work out revised and new schemes with the National Dock Labour Board, they will have problems and they will regret not having that sort of provision.
Equally, there will be a problem from the trade unions' and employees' point of view if the Government decide to bring in a cut-off for existing labour at 1967. We deeply regret this in some of the newer industries in new locations, such as cold storage and warehousing. This is one situation in which appeal to some independent body could help, and is necessary from the employees' point of view.
If the hon. Member for Garston thinks that my hon. Friends and I have been spending the last six months going around at weekends stirring up workers in various industries, then he has a peculiar idea of how we spend our weekends. In my neck of the woods, the area surrounding Southampton, I have had very strong representations from freight drivers—intercontinental drivers who go through the port of Southampton. Even since the introduction of the 1967 amendment, I have had strong representations from railwaymen in Southampton, quite apart from those I have had from cold storage workers and warehousemen. I have not spent my time standing outside dock gates running election-type meetings. I have had representations from people who have come to me because


they had very real fears about the situation. I did not seek them out.
This sort of appeal machinery could be very helpful. In the absence of more being written into the Bill, we need some more clarification of the problem of recruitment and how people can move from one register to the next. This is a matter of considerable importance. Many of us believe that recruitment to the main register should now take place only through the extension register and that one should serve one's time on the extension register before moving on. If that is not done I do not see how either the National Dock Labour Board or the local boards will be able to fulfil their statutory obligations under the Bill to balance the supply and demand in dock labour taking one month or one season with another. We did not get a satisfactory reply to this absolutely crucial point in Committee. We still want to know how the boards will fulfil this obligation placed upon them.
There is also the problem of those who are brought in under the Bill. Their work becomes classified as dock work. The Government have said that such people will go on to the extension register and that they will not therefore lose their jobs. Their successors may have to be registered dock labour. But then there is the problem of medical fitness. If they are not medically fit to do all dock work they can still go on to the main dock register. Part of the problem particularly in London, is the number of registered dock workers who are not medically fit to do all forms of dock work. To bring new recruits on to the main register who at that point are not medically fit to do all dock work cannot serve the purposes of the scheme.
This year's Port of London Authority report says on page 16:
During the year some 2,670 registered dock workers, including 500 medically restricted men, and 320 of the non-registered staff formerly employed by the Scruttons Group were absorbed into the PLA.
That meant that they were taking on as registered dock workers more than 500 men who were not medically fit to do all dock work. This raises a number of very great problems. I have tabled a new clause which suggests how this problem can be dealt with. Because of the nature

of the guillotine it seems unlikely that it will be reached. Because of the sort of problems which will arise in this situation something along the lines of New Clause 5 is neeeded.
I hope that the Secretary of State will give an undertaking that he will do something along the lines that I have proposed so as to spell out in the Bill the powers and composition of the local dock labour boards. If he does not, the success of the scheme will be greatly prejudiced and there will be far more disputes leading to the need for something like New Clause 1 and New Clause 5.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: I agree very much with the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price), who directed his remarks towards the responsibility and autonomy of local boards. When this point was raised in Committee I sympathised very much with his argument. I agree broadly with what he said about recruitment. That leads me to a point which I raised in Committee and upon which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will now have the opportunity to comment.
In the Port of London we are faced with a surplus of labour. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) mentioned a figure. That figure varies, and at the moment it is at its highest for many years. As economic circumstances generally are still uncertain, it appears that the port will carry a fairly large surplus of labour for some foreseeable time. Therefore, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend what are the Government's intentions for finance—the Chairman of the Port of London Authority, Lord Aldington, mentioned the point in his annual report, if not this year, certainly last year—or for some kind of Goverment subvention to help the authority. I know that this point is slightly outside the scope of the clause. The matter goes back some little time, but it is relevant in two ways. It is not altogether clear how many jobs will be available as a result of the extension of the scheme in London. I have had some "guesstimates" about that, but I have seen no figures which I can regard as reliable.
4.45 p.m.
Representations have been made to me, not by some of the organisations which have spoken to the right hon. Member for


Lowestoft but by other bodies such as the London wharfingers who take an altogether much more responsible attitude to the Bill. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has been speaking to some of the wrong people. I have received representations from a number of trade unionists in the TGWU inland waterways section who are very worried about this aspect of the financing of surplus labour. When my right hon. Friend replies on this clause I hope he will say something about this matter, because that would be of great guidance to a number of people who are genuinely anxious about it.

Mr. Kenneth Baker (St. Marylebone): The hon. Gentleman referred to the number of jobs which may become available in London as a result of the Bill. That statistic has been the most elusive to extract from the Government. The purpose of the Bill is to create new job opportunities for dockers. The Government have been reluctant to say how many job opportunities will be created. The hon. Gentleman said that he had had some "guesstimates" of the number. Will he say what these are, because we should like to know them?

Mr. Williams: I am not prepared to give them because the numbers mentioned to me seem either wildly optimistic or depressingly low. I would much prefer to await some official estimates from my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Booth: I am not attempting to close the debate in any way, but hon. Members may find it useful if at this stage I reply to certain direct points which have been put to me, particularly those directed at New Clause 1 and New Clause 5. Both these clauses deal with a very narrow issue. It is how to resolve any dispute which should arise about whether work would or would not be covered by Part I of Schedule 3. This is purely a matter of statutory interpretation which I believe in many cases would not give rise to any disputes. It is not a basic issue about the registration of dock work. There will be many cases in which it should be readily agreed that work is covered by Part I of Schedule 3 and in which there will be no dispute as to whether that work is regarded as dock work.
If work was borderline and if it was unclear whether it came within Part I of the schedule, I think that it would

be highly unlikely that the board would embark upon an examination of that work with a view to determining whether it should recommend to the Secretary of State that he should make it dock work. In any case, if someone took the view that work he was doing was not covered by Part I of the schedule or if trade union members who were engaged in that area felt that the board had no legal right there, that would be a matter on which they could go to the courts. They would contend that the board was acting ultra vires and was claiming to have a power to survey with which the Act did not provide it.
This is a very narrow issue and not the sort of issue which is likely to give rise to a great deal of difficulty. Whether it is a matter which is better determined by the Central Arbitration Committee or by the courts is an interesting issue which the new clause raises. I would have thought that, since it is a matter of whether a power is provided by legal definition, it would normally be a matter for the courts.
For the purpose of examining fully the proposition of New Clause I, suppose we said that this was a matter for the CAC. I ask the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) in what way that would differ from having the matter resolved in court. Would it be his contention that decisions of the CAC on whether work was within the definition of Part I of Schedule 3 should constitute legal precedent and therefore be held to be the future yardstick on whether that sort of work was classifiable? That is the issue to be settled. Whether it was done by the CAC or by a court, I do not think that this would change the basic issue or remove the subsequent argument which might follow the decision that the work was classifiable. It is highly likely that in cases where people would challenge whether the work was classifiable they would also challenge whether it was correct for the National Dock Labour Board to register work as being work. I have already said that this is more likely to be a contentious issue.
The same is true of New Clause 5. One of the essential differences between New Clause 5 and New Clause 1 is that New Clause 5 puts forward the proposition that tests should he made by an industrial tribunal. We are getting a little closer


to the legal practice and moving from the CAC to the industrial tribunal. Much the same argument applies if one has an industrial tribunal determining what is the meaning of "work" in Part I of Schedule 3.
New Clause 5 raises another interesting but even narrower issue: the question of how one settles an argument as to whether a place is within the cargo-handling zone or outside it. This is a question of fact. If one could not agree with the value of expert advice, presumably from Ordnance Survey sources, whether the premises fell within the cargo-handling zone as defined by the Bill, it could be argued that that matter could as easily be settled by a court of law as by an industrial tribunal. I do not think that an industrial tribunal is any better than a court with a tape measure or large-scale Ordnance Survey map. If it is not required to rely on expert witnesses, it tends to turn to the same area.
Therefore, New Clause 1 and New Clause 5 are directed at a matter of legal definition and do not address the issue, which I accent is of very real concern, of whether the procedure laid down in the Bill for determining the way in which we settle what is or is not to be registered dock work should be properly tested.
I put it to the House, as I put to the Committee, that, given the procedure that we have in the Bill, the method of examination of the final right of determination by the House is a better method than having the issue settled by a court or a tribunal. If there has been a specific difficulty arising from the present scheme, it is that this House has not had control on matters like this. It has been possible for the court, by decision on what is dock work, to settle the matter in a way which might be unsatisfactory from an industrial relations point of view.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) is absolutely right when he says that the question of whether work is covered by Part I of Schedule 3 and is not covered by Part II of Schedule 3 is one of a whole series of tests which the Bill imposes, and it is by no means the most important or the most contentious one. Many of the other tests are important

and contentious. It is much better to debate the issue of whether the Bill provides satisfactory modern means of determining what should be registered dock work and what should not be registered dock work.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): As one who did not serve on the Committee, I seek information from the Minister. Is his answer in the case of New Clause 1 and New Clause 5 that neither the CAC nor an industrial tribunal is adequate and that he will rely wholly on the courts?

Mr. Booth: I am saying that the primary issue raised by New Clause 1 and New Clause 5 is a matter of legal definition of whether work is covered by Part I of Schedule 3. It is a more appropriate matter for the courts than for an industrial tribunal or the CAC. However, I am not saying that that in itself is crucial to the working of the Bill, but the effect would have to be much the same unless it is the intention—I admit that it is open to doubt—that, by exercising the appeal which is spelt out in New Clause 1, one would not cut out the right subsequently to go to a court. If one is not cutting out that right to argue that an Order laid by the Secretary of State under Clause 11 was ultra vires, that is a different matter and a different argument would apply. I took it from the way the hon. Member for Bodmin introduced the matter that he would accept that that would be the final decision.

Mr. Hicks: The point I am trying to to make is that, as a layman, I have always looked upon the courts as the area of last appeal. If one can avoid it by having structures appropriate to the industry in question and to the circumstances that one is discussing, one should opt for the latter rather than talk about the fall-back situation of the legal processes.

Mr. Booth: In some ways it underlines what I am saying about the difficulty of the procedure arising from the other point which has been put to me. The hon. Member has conceded by his remarks that there may still possibly be a last line of appeal to the courts going beyond that. If that is the argument, we are in greater difficulty with New Clause 1 than I originally suggested.
If that is the line, what would be the position if a dispute which arose as to


whether work was covered by Part I of Schedule 3 went to the CAC as provided in New Clause 1, the CAC came to the conclusion that the work was covered on that basis and the board went ahead and made a recommendation to the Secretary of State, who accepted it and made an Order under Clause 11, which was then laid before the House, and someone challenged the vires of the Order? In that event, neither I nor a successor could rely on the CAC decision, because a person would have the right to say "The court must be the final determining area whether this work is covered by Part I of Schedule 3". That would be an additional difficulty if we took that view. I add that to my reasons for suggesting that this is not the best way of settling the issue.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bodmin that it is better not to use procedures that involve the courts but to use the rights of representation to the board, of submission to the Secretary of State and, if necessary, if Members are still not satisfied, of determining the matter on the Floor of the House.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Prior: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) the Minister seemed to suggest that there was always a right of appeal to the court for an aggrieved person. Is there a right of appeal to the court for an aggrieved person only if the Secretary of State acts ultra vires? Is it right that there is no automatic right of appeal for anyone who feels aggrieved by the National Dock Labour Board unless the matter is ultra vires?
The Secretary of State has complete power. This House is the only place which can take that power away from him. We do not consider that this House is constituted in such a way as to he able to exercise that power. Therefore, it means that there is no proper right of appeal for anyone who feels aggrieved under a decision. The only appeal that is perhaps available is an ultra vires appeal to the court, or an appeal to this House. That is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Mr. Booth: The right hon. Gentleman draws me deep into lawyers' territory. I do not accept that the only way in which somebody could act on the contention

that an action was ultra vires because it related to work not covered by Part of Schedule 1 would be by bringing an action against the Secretary of State. In my view—this may be subject to legal check—such an action might be brought against the National Dock Labour Board as well if it proceeded to carry out a survey of work which was not covered. I do not think that it is limited to an action against the Secretary of State.
Another question was whether a decision of this House would settle the issue. I suggest that it would not. If a Secretary of State made an Order that was ultra vires, the fact that the House took a decision on it would not necessarily make the Order legal. It could be capable of challenge. That is my yew on the matter, but I may have to bow to greater legal authority, since I have not had a chance to take legal advice. However, when I was chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments my understanding was that an Order, even if approved, was still capable of challenge in a court.
Two other matters which have been raised relate to New Clause 7 and the formation of local dock labour boards. I have an open mind about local dock labour boards. As I indicated in Committee, the composition, rôle and function of the National Dock Labour Board are of great importance. I have two objections to New Clause 7. The first is that it lays down a specific type, size and set membership of board for every area throughout the country. However, I suggest that it is desirable to have some flexibility. The second objection is that this matter would be determined within the Bill rather than be left for the scheme.
It will be for the Secretary of State to lay before the House a scheme, and that scheme will contain provisions for local dock labour boards. Such provision is made under Schedule 2. The only area within the control of the board will be that covered by the board. The areas are not necessarily coterminous with the National Dock Labour Board scheme areas.
The Bill as drafted, by virtue of Clause 5(7)(b), allows for schemes making different provisions for different areas. As that clause enables amending Orders to be made altering the boundaries of dock


labour scheme areas, or amending the schemes relating to different areas, as provided in Clause 5(8), there is much greater flexibility.
I agree with the approach by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) to this matter of local boards, but I cannot recommend the House to accept the new clause, because it would take from us the flexibility that both he and I believe desirable.

Mr. David Price: There is some force in the Minister's point regarding the composition of the board, but he will appreciate that I took the same composition as for the national board as I thought it broadly more acceptable. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider spelling out more than appears in the schedule the composition of the local board? That would go a long way to meeting my point and would assist me. As at present drafted, it suggests that the National Dock Labour Board has complete autonomy. I think that he said that he would like to reserve his position.

Mr. Booth: I think that I can go some way to giving the undertaking for which the hon. Gentleman asks. I undertake between now and laying any scheme before the House to give serious thought to the proposition that we should include in this scheme greater details of the nature of local boards than have been included in the present scheme. There is a strong argument for that proposal, but I defend the proposition, to which I have alluded, which would make provision for greater flexibility and the right to bring Orders before the House to amend local schemes in the light of experience or of particular developments. That kind of flexibility is highly desirable and indicates that we appreciate that we are concerned with an industry in which a number of developments are taking place. A scheme which might look ideal on paper this year may in two or three years in the light of further developments in the area to which it applies need revision.

Mr. James Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend saying that the local board on Humberside or Merseyside, for instance, will define which firms will come into the workings of the scheme—I have in mind

Birds Eye, which is obviously using much of its own stuff, whether it be beans in Lincolnshire or fish on the Humber—as opposed to firms which, in the old-fashioned sense, are importing cargoes from the Antipodes or other places 5,000 or 8,000 miles away and which are being handled by old-fashioned dockers—I use that expression advisedly—on the dock side?

Mr. Booth: The straight answer to my hon. Friend is "No". I am not saying that we shall in the scheme spell out that one of the functions of the local dock labour board will be to recommend to the National Dock Labour Board and, through that body, to the Secretary of State which firms in its area might be covered by the scheme. That is a matter to which the House will no doubt want to give further consideration and which I shall want to consider before laying a scheme before the House. I hope that we shall reach the part of the Bill dealing with the way in which recommendations are made to the Secretary of State. That will be the appropriate point at which to deal with this question.

Mr. Anthony Fell: Is there not going to be a dreadful muddle? If the boards are to have regard to Schedule 3(3) and to Schedule 3(10), how will they be led or misled by putting those two parts of the Bill together?

Mr. Booth: This matter relates more to New Clauses 1 and 5 than to the rôle of local boards.
One can make a connection in that when a local board has been set up and premises in its area are considered by the NDLB as suitable for survey, there may be some discussion with the local board making a recommendation to the national board. Whether the national board uses the local board as its agent or sends some of its own members to conduct the survey is open for consideration under the Bill. This is a matter that we can debate when schemes are laid before Parliament.
It is better to retain this flexibility in the form and composition of the board. We may wish to alter the areas to be covered by a board or even its composition at some date, possibly after the passing of the scheme.
I have been asked how many jobs will be made available in the London area


under the scheme. It is impossible for me to answer that question. We are determining in the Bill a mechanism or apparatus to involve people in the determination of what work should be classified as dock work. The answer to the question that I have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Williams) and others depends on those decisions.
Any order that classifies work must be laid before the House and, even if I could, I should not want to pre-empt that discussion. We shall have a sensible means of making that determination, but it is right that the ultimate decision should lie with the House. If the House thinks it wise to pass classification Orders, it will increase the numbers covered by the scheme. If it turns down some Orders, it will limit the numbers, but there is no way of extending the scheme without making classification Orders.

Sir David Renton: Although one new scheme would have to be approved by a resolution of each House and, no doubt, be subject to a full-scale, whole-day debate, Orders made under the scheme, which are the really effective instruments, could be taken piecemeal, probably late at night when hon. Members whose constituencies are affected might find it difficult to muster sufficient opposition to get the Orders turned down against the strength of the Government Whips. This matter is causing great anxiety.

Mr. Booth: In order to answer that question I should have to go into the adequacy or otherwise of our delegated legislation procedure, which would not be appropriate. Even after a scheme had been passed following a major debate in both Houses, a number of Orders would be required to make it effective or to classify areas. These would be of great importance to hon. Members. I do not rest upon the constituency interest; there is a broader interest, too.
For this purpose the House has devised a procedure that enables Orders to be placed before a Merits Committee at which every hon. Member may attend and state his view. The matter under discussion is then brought back to the Floor of the House for a final determination by vote. If contentious Orders are laid

on the classification of areas or work, hon. Members may consider whether they wish to take them in the Merits Committee or pray against them in the House.

Sir David Renton: They are subject to affirmative resolutions, not prayers.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Booth: Not all the Orders are subject to affirmative resolutions. With those that are, 20 hon. Members rising in their places can ensure a debate on the Floor of the House. I am not paying an undue compliment to opponents of the Bill if I suggest that they will not find any great difficulty in getting 20 hon Members to pursue this course.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) is not here. I tried to intervene in his speech when in my view he put a very good argument against the five-mile corridor. I was hoping that he would suggest that we should drop it.
The hon. Member was highlighting local customs and I know that in Liverpool there is a custom that dockers do not get involved with the work of cold stores. In. Southampton there are also local arrangements, particularly in regard to traffic to the Isle of Wight, which has not become dockers' work. Why must we have this corridor if local customs are to prevail?
We should give full credit to the Secretary of State, who is always painstaking and long-suffering, but following his reply I am more confused than ever. The merit of the new clauses is that they give room for someone to arbitrate or at least negotiate in disputes and, whatever hon. Members opposite say, there undobtedly will be disputes.
Most people do not want to go to law and an arbitrator could listen to the evidence from both sides and reach a decision. If he were asked to rule on a point of law, the matter could then go to the courts. That seems perfectly sensible.
I do not take much comfort from the fact that we may have debates on Orders on the Floor of the House, especially if there is a repetition of what has occurred in the proceedings on this Bill. There were many amendments which should have


been taken up by the Government. Regulations may be brought before us late at night and, although there will be a decision of the House, we all know that there is a built-in majority on most occasions and things which should not get through will almost certainly be passed.
A document which the British Importers' Confederation has sent to most hon. Members highlights many of its concerns. The Secretary of State gave an assurance in Committee that the Government do not intend to introduce a scheme which involved the Board operating in negotiations or being a negotiating forum. Therefore, some arbitrary decisions will be made which no one will be able to question except by some procedure when the board's recommendations are laid before the House.
I support the new clauses. I am not happy with the way they are drawn and some of us would rather be debating other amendments—although, of course, we accept Mr. Speaker's ruling. The Government should think again about what will happen in some of the areas quoted in the document referred to. Although the Minister gave some assurances, we do not see on the Notice Paper all the amendments that we might have had from the Government.
The Secretary of State said that there was no question of the driving of vehicles within dock estates being generally classified as dock work. We need clarification of that. The Under-Secretary of State gave an assurance that the Government had no intention that the scheme should fix in absolute terms remuneration, hours of work and holidays with pay, or disturb existing collective agreements. I suggest that we may still have problems to resolve there. There are many other items which will obviously be matters of great dispute, on which the Government have not tabled amendments—and it is getting late.
The position of the local boards is a matter of dispute and I am pleased that the Secretary of State said that he was still open to representations on that score. Many of those who have been sending us suggested amendments and who know the business were disappointed when they had high-level discussions with the Secretary of State over the position of the local boards. They wanted to get wider

representation on them, bringing in not just employers and unions. I would hope that the consumers could have been represented, but at least the field should have been widened. Unfortunately, the Government did not accept those amendments in Committee and I am sorry that we shall not be able to press them tonight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. I think that Mr. Speaker said that he had been fairly indulgent earlier about hon. Members addressing themselves to the new clauses, but the hon. Member is now going rather wide.

Mr. Ross: I accept what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am replying to the Secretary of State who went into this and presumably gave us the opportunity to deal with it. I shall not go further, but this is an area of dispute.
I should be horrified if vital decisions were not left to local boards and if the national board were permitted to step in. Obviously, most matters should be left to local boards in places like Hull and Southampton. Southampton operates pretty well with its existing board, although it is not constituted as I have suggested.
I hope that the Government will think again about the appeals procedure. Someone has to negotiate on the ground if we are not to have a whole series of further legal actions. Surely we all wish to avoid that.

Mr. A. P. Costain: When the Secretary of State rose to speak, I had every reason to expect that he would accept the new clauses. In a guillotined debate, I shall restrict my remarks closely to matters affecting my constituency. I agree with most of what has been said by my hon. Friends. We shall be able later to discuss whether our constituency ports are excluded from the Bill. I doubt whether all those who have put down later amendments will be able to move them, so I rely on the two new clause to protect my port.
The port of Folkestone is not a dock in any sense. I rely very much on the new clauses to establish early on whether it comes within the scheme at all. For instance, we have no warehouses in the normal sense. We are a port, not a dock. The only facilities we have are Customs


sheds and Customs loading. Most of the cargo is hand baggage carried by passengers on the ferries. There are no large cargo-handling facilities. We have facilities for loading lorries, but none is loaded within the five-mile corridor.
I would therefore prefer if we could establish a simple form of appeal so that it was accepted once and for all that factories in areas like mine were exempt. Taking the matter to court would be enormously complicated and expensive. Why should a town which has no other purpose as a port than to accommodate ferries be affected by a Bill designed to deal with cargo-loading ports?
I do not agree with the five-mile disance, and cargo-loading facilities would be included in a much smaller distance. Therefore, why should we not have a simple procedure? Why should not both new clauses be adopted.
I am impressed by the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks). In a case like this, we need simple procedures. We shall try later to exempt our ports, with good reason, but I am not optimistic that my powerful arguments on that occasion will convince the House. I therefore rely on these clauses and I hope that the Government will have second thoughts and appreciate that this is one way of simplifying the procedure as it should be simplified.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The need for the new clauses has been admirably demonstrated by the Secretary of State's speech. This is a technical and complicated piece of legislation requiring careful interpretation at practically every level. When the Secretary of State was trying to distinguish between those decisions of his which might be regarded as ultra vires, suggesting that appeal to the courts was an adequate remedy, those of us who spent long hours in Committee began to wonder whether it had all been worth it.
At the end of the day, someone somewhere has to take an industrial decision which might employ people, produce and export goods and help towards our economic survival. One of the questions which is relevant not only to these new clauses but to any others that we debate is whether it will improve matters. We might also ask the same about the Bill

—whether on a certain day in an uncertain year it will achieve an improvement in economic performance. The straight answer is that it is extremely doubtful. When the Bill is applied to certain sectors of industry, industrial costs will rise.
However, of one thing we may be absolutely sure—within the operation of the National Docks Labour Board and the local boards there will be, in the classification of work and the definition of the corridor, many areas of grey opinion where further objective assessment will be required. The new clauses suggest an appeal procedure to be written into the Bill here and now. I would emphasise that point. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say, "We shall deal with that when we lay before the House the general schedules as to how the national board or the local boards will operate, and when we lay Orders in detail." But that means deferring for a long time the solution of certain anxieties which have been expressed by some basic industries.
We have had no shortage of considered and carefully calculated industrial comment on these proposals. Equally, we have had considered and carefully calculated trade union objections to the proposals, and certain affirmative voices have been raised in support of them.
5.30 p.m.
I draw to the House's attention the cold storage industry because it provides evidence in support of the two new clauses, which seek interpretation and appeals procedure. The industry is a hybrid. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) said, its traditional trade in refrigerated cargoes has rapidly declined. Since 1967 the cold storage industry has expanded ninefold. It is housing more than a million tons of the nation's food supply and it is now a long-term public cold storage industry.
It is no longer associated in the main, or even in a modest degree, with the traditional handling of refrigerated cargoes. Some parts of the cold storage industry still handle refrigerated cargoes, but the question of definition, with which the clause is acutely concerned, must be applied to the industry as a whole. Is it or is it not to be part of the Dock Labour Scheme?
It has been consistently argued in Committee and by the industry that the cold storage industry, which is part of the frozen food industry and which has developed rapidly since 1967 as an arm of the nation's larder, is quite separate from the traditional dock handling of refrigerated cargo. By passing the new clauses the House could come to an interpretative judgment whether that is a true and valid case, but the Minister has declined to accept them. We must turn back to his predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman who is presently Leader of the House. In the Second Reading debate he said:
long-established warehousing, storage, packaging and cold store operations, which are not related directly to work transferred from the docks and which are not connected with port operations, would most certainly not be classified as dock work and, therefore, subject to the new scheme."—[Official Report, 10th February 1976; Vol. 905, c. 267.]
We seek, and have sought so far in vain, a categorical assurance that where a large industry is at stake the Bill should contain a simple definition which would enable an exception to be made, and that a statement should be laid before the House that the Bill does not apply to that industry.
With the possible exception of the refrigerated meat trade, there is no historical connection between the cold storage industry and traditional dock work. It could be argued that there are portions of the cold store industry which are directly related to dock work. One could almost argue that a cod is a piece of cargo in transit, whether it comes in at Hull docks unloaded by dockers and sent to be repackaged in bread-crumbs and made rectangular in the Birds Eye factory. We cannot start talking about repackaging cargoes to enable us to define a cargo which has been reprocessed. Yet it might be possible for that to be argued.
What cannot be gainsaid is that this industry has grown up outside the traditions of the transport industry. It has increased in volume and is now offering well over 1 million cubic feet capacity. The industry has grown ninefold since 1967. I recall that 1967 is the vesting year applied to the Bill. In vain have we sought to have the industry excluded. Yet the Government have decided that that

portion of the industry owned by the National Freight Corporation—which accounts for 10 per cent. of cold storage facilities—shall be exempted from the provisions of the Bill.
I come back to the new clauses. Is it not obvious that the matter of definition and appeal should be considered and that persons operating within the industry should be given the opportunity of stating their case and saying whether the work that goes in in their warehouse or cold store should be classified as dock work? Surely there is an added need for such a provision in the Bill, as the Government have steadfastly refused to recognise the case of the cold storage industry on the one hand but, on the other hand, have allowed themselves the luxury of exempting the 10 per cent. they own on behalf of the taxpayer. That is duplicity of the highest order and it undermines confidence in the economic effectiveness of an industry which serves the housewife well.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: May I ask my hon. Friend's help? I have a cold store in my constituency. If the cold store remains as it is, it falls within the ambit of the scheme, but supposing it were to be purchased in future by the National Freight Corporation, is it my hon. Friend's understanding that it would go outside the scheme?

Mr. Shaw: That is a classic case which illustrates the need for a disputes procedure. All the cold store ramifications of the National Freight Corporation are outwith the scheme. Therefore, it follows that should the corporation acquire an additional portion of the cold storage industry, that additional portion would also be outwith the scheme.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: What happens if the National Freight Corporation sells a cold store?

Mr. Shaw: By my reading of the Bill, its operations would become liable to be classified as dock work under the Bill. Therefore, presumably, employees who were once outside the scheme would be likely to find their jobs put at risk by those on the extension register or the main register of dockers to take their place. The Minister of State must surely agree that that illustration of what might


happen in the National Freight Corporation emphasises the desperate need for a sensitive procedure to enable these matters to be properly examined.
One of the main objectives of the Bill is to ensure that the special class of the national work force known as dockers finds additional employment outside the traditional dock areas. None of my hon. Friends would object to that as a laudable right, but why should someone whose traditional industry has declined and changed out of all recognition seek to move into another industry taking with him all the appurtenances of his previous industry? No one objects to the recruitment of labour into the food industry, the cold storage industry or the distribution industry, if the labour coming into the industry observes the normal rules and practices of the industry. But we are asked under the Bill to provide that the docker may take with him, wheresoe'er he goeth, the traditional rôle of the docker, the title of "docker" and many of the privileges he has previously enjoyed.
He also takes with him many of the costs he has previously enjoyed. Those costs become part and parcel of the employer's problem in the industry to which he goes. That brings me back to the vital question of definition, classification and right of appeal. Why should the 2 million tons of the nation's food in cold store be subjected to an additional cost of £6 a ton? Why should the nation foot that bill simply because all cold storage workers are required to become part of the registered dock labour force?
The Minister of State will recognise that that is not what the scheme intends to do—or is it? We do not know. All we can say is that there is provision for labour to he taken into the cold storage industry, because it is not exempt, and that will bring complications with it, as sure as night follows day. Those complications we must resolve by a simple and effective procedure and that is what the clauses before the House seek to do.
Certainly the cold storage industry has a record second to none in industrial relations. It has lost very few days in strikes, while the dock industry has not had a particularly happy period of industrial relations. Why then must we import the difficulties of one industry into another? This is where we find the need for a new clause such as this

to provide a sensitive definition of an appeals procedure.
I am surprised that the Government in the past have made a virtue out of appeals procedures. They did so in the long and harrowing debates on the Industry Act last year when they set great store by the use of ACAS and industrial tribunals, but on this Bill they fight shy of doing so because they do not wish at this stage to say that the Bill is imperfect. They do not wish to pre-empt what the National Dock Labour Board when reconstituted would want to do. Above all, they do not wish to indicate to their supporters that they are taking seriously some of the major objections from the employers of labour.
It is the employers who are really objecting to having to face a situation in which the jobs of the people who work for them will be altered by the infusion of perhaps a handful or perhaps substantially more members who are at present on the dock register. Nowhere will this be the case more than in the cold storage and distribution industries. They are special because they are part of the food industry. They are special because they have very few traditional links with dockland. They are special because they are largely part of an inland agricultural distribution network and they are extremely sensitive in relation to price and competition. They are special because to the housewife they represent one of the surest ways in which food can be stored, processed and distributed at minimal cost.
It is in the national interest that the Bill should proceed in this way and threaten to undermine such an industry, or is it in the national interest that we should seek to call a halt to it? Is it in the national interest that there should be clear exemptions which the Leader of the House envisaged in February this year? Should the Bill contain provisions for the satisfactory solution of disputes and the satisfactory examination of who is right or wrong when it comes to classifying work and defining where it should be done?
There is an overwhelming case not only for exempting the cold storage industry but certainly for including a procedure designed to ensure that all industry is not trampled underfoot, in the name of 30,000 dockers.

Mrs. Lynda Chalker: In these two new clauses we have embodied what people normally consider to be an essential aspect of British justice—the right of appeal against a decision. Nowhere in our 36 sittings of debate in Committee did we get from the Government a feeling, despite some of the entreaties from their own Back Benchers, that a right of appeal would be forthcoming in this legislation.
At the end of the Committee stage I felt that we had not talked to enough people. Therefore, the intervening period between our Committee stage and this amputated Report stage has been useful if only to discover from a greater number of people their views on this Bill as it came out of Committee. Some hon. Members may not be surprised to hear, that, if anything, the views of certain groups of workers had hardened because they found that the Government had been totally unresponsive to their entreaties about the way in which work might or might not be classified as dock work in the future. Their entreaties as to how an extension register might be defined had not been listened to as they had been given to understand in the consultation documents two years ago they would be.
Therefore, I spent some of the intervening time visiting warehouses particularly, but also talking to dock workers about what would happen to this Bill when it got on to the statute book. That is surely what the House must be concerned about—whether the Bill will advance the work at our ports and of dock handling or whether it will throw further impediments in the way of British industry, impediments which we can surely do without.
5.45 p.m.
I am amazed at the unanimity of feeling among drivers, warehousemen, cold storage men and dockers. They do not believe that the Bill can provide greater employment. They believe that it will only cause greater strife. One of the questions they ask is "How can this matter be resolved? Is there an appeals procedure?" That question without exception was asked during every single set of discussions that I had.

Mr. James Johnson: In no way do I doubt the sincerity of the hon. Lady, but as she tells me that she spent valuable

hours speaking to workers on the dock side, can she specify the unions to which those employees belong and who gave her the impression that there was unanimity—I believe that is the word she used—among workers against the Bill?

Mrs. Chalker: I shall be glad to tell the hon. Gentleman. I spoke to members of USDAW, the General and Municipal Workers Union and the Transport and General Workers Union. Of couse, one had to be selective. I could not possibly visit every quayside and dockside, but when I sought an invitation and I was able to go, I did not find those workers at all in opposition to what my hon. Friends and I said in Committee or on Second Reading.
I think it behoves us to consider the experience of one particular industry because it is an industry which has experienced considerable changes since 1967. Hon. Members may be a little surprised that I chose an industry which was based not so much on Liverpool as on London. One industry in which the workers are severely worried about the outcome of the existing state of work and worried that they will have no appeal is the tea industry. In 1966 between 75 per cent. and 80 per cent. of the tea drunk in this country was imported through the Port of London. Last year it ranged between 10 per cent. and 14 per cent. The rest of that trade now travels to this country through the ports of Avon and Liverpool. The point is that the tea that was imported through the Port of London was handled by registered dock workers. The tea that today is handled on the Kirkby Estate on Merseyside is not handled by registered dock workers and never has been since that trade went to Merseyside.
Therefore, the men handling that trade on Merseyside ask "What is to happen? Are the dock workers of Liverpool to have a natural right to come to this area, which is outside the five-mile limit? What right of appeal have we as workers against the decision? Should the decision be taken by the local dock labour board?" I have no satisfactory answer to give them at the moment, because all the words of the Secretary of State and the Minister of State in Committee and today will not allay the fears of those men.
I could continue at some length about the tea trade, but I shall refrain from doing so. Nevertheless it is an interesting example of how the magic date of 1967 does not cure the ills which befall this industry. The real fear is that the Government have perhaps not been as ready to listen as everybody was given the impression they would be.
Amendments and suggestions have been submitted to the Government. Let us examine a few of them. I know that dock workers and warehousemen from different parts of the country have regaled the Department of Employment with suggestions about the local boards. They, like members of the Committee, had hoped that by Report they would hear proposals about how the Bill would affect them. They still have considerable fears about how the decision will be made about who will be allowed to do what work, and about their security in the long term. They feel that the Government were deaf throughout the Committee stage and are still deaf now.
I expected that the Minister, as he is hon. Member for Doncaster, would understand the situation since many of his constituents will be affected by the Bill because of the way in which it extends inland. I hope that he will listen carefully to what his constituents say when their jobs are in question and they have no appeal and no way in which they can be sure that their entreaties are heard. They are fearful because their entreaties have so far fallen on deaf ears.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Because of the time factor it is important that we should be precise. The hon. Lady said that people were in fear of their jobs. I have not read in the Bill that people will be displaced from their jobs. The hon. Lady should define what she means.

Mrs. Chalker: It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to intervene in that way and I shall turn to the notes I made at the Dagenham Cold Storage Company when two shop stewards asked me "Are you aware that names are already going down among London dockers for work at the Dagenham Cold Storage Company?" In Committee I quoted the substance of a meeting of the Barry dockers where workers said that they intended to take over many jobs. It is a wider question

than the Banana Seven issue. That is why men are afraid and that is why I say that the fear is more widespread than hon. Members credit.

Mr. Leadbitter: I understand the hon. Lady's argument because she made it clear in Committee, but it is one thing to express fear which is caused by propaganda and another to express fear about what is in the Bill. There are no provisions in the Bill relating to the displacement of workers. We are talking about the classification of workers.

Mrs. Chalker: I am aware that there is no clause which displaces workers from their jobs. But written into the Bill is the right of dockers to take on work which was formerly classified as dock work but which has not been so classified since 1967. In that sense it is little wonder that many people working in warehouses and cold storage depots are worried that by giving a right over all other workers to 32,000 men, someone will suffer unless there is a vast expansion of the industry. The House and the Committee will be aware that the industry has been continually diminishing rather than expanding.
I shall give some examples to show why the new clauses are needed. In Committee I was chided for my groundless fears. But what appeal will there be if a local dock labour board decides to classify the movement of cargo to an inland storage place if it has come through a port and is defined as dock work? Workers 12 miles distant from rivers fear that the handling of goods which have passed through a port and which have been assembled on ships or abroad will be classified as dock work. They can see no way in which the Bill will safeguard them from that possibility.
I am not the first person to question the Minister about that. He was asked about it by the shop stewards in the Transport and General Workers Union but he never answered their questions.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): Will the hon. Lady explain that last point again? She said that the Transport and General Workers Union shop stewards had put a point to me which I had not answered. I have no recollection of that.

Mrs. Chalker: I have a list of suggested amendments to the Bill signed by the


chairman of the shop stewards of the TGWU which I am reliably informed was not acknowledeged by the Department. If the Minister wishes to look at the list, I shall give it him outside the Chamber.

Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Lady first said that the shop stewards spoke to me about this matter and that I had not replied. Is she now saying that a letter has been sent to my Department—because that is a different matter?

Mrs. Chalker: I was informed by the shop stewards that not only had they spoken to the Minister but that they had sent their views in writing and therefore were surprised that there was no result. [An HON. MEMBER: "Liar."] I regret that an hon. Member should call me something which is unparliamentary. If he cares to say it in so many words, perhaps we can discuss the matter.
Shop stewards have asked me "What appeal is there against attempts, when the Bill comes into force, to interfere with manning scales which have always been a matter between management and men?" They fear that the power of the local dock labour board to talk in terms of insisting that they will be registered dock workers could interfere with that system. They believe that there is no way of getting out of that situation.
The issues which I have described have been raised again and again. The fact that there is no appeal in the Bill concerns everybody in the House. I do not doubt the Minister's sincerity in the way that he has dealt with the Bill, but he and his colleagues have been exceedingly short-sighted in not introducing an appeals procedure to cut out the worry and concern of workers. The Minister can put that right by accepting one of the new clauses.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I intervene briefly as one who did not serve on the Committee and who is therefore bound to approach these highly technical discussions with diffidence. I should declare an interest in that I was for some years in the Ministry of Transport with some responsibility for ports. In those years I discussed the dock labour scheme and its possible extension with many Labour hon. Members and trade unions. I was once associated with the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, although I no

longer have such a connection. Thirdly, I have in my constituency a cold store whose workers are very alarmed. Labour Members may have views on whether they have reason to be alarmed. I merely state it as a fact that they are.
6.0 p.m.
Fourthly, over the past year or so I have been trying to sell to a number of countries in the Middle East and Africa the idea of coming to Britain for consultancy services in the management of ports. I was hoping to persuade them that we had something to offer from the Port of London Authority, the National Freight Corporation, such private ports as Felixstowe, and the British banking system. I believe that there are good prospects in the whole subject of ports consultancy services provided by the public and private sector, but I fear that the prospects have been damaged by the Bill.
I intervene in the debate for three reasons. The first is that I was fascinated by the Minister's sensitivity—and I hope that he will not take this personally—when my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) dared to suggest that he might not have the Transport and General Workers Union with him on every particular. He immediately rose, because whatever the merits of the argument the one thing he would not let go unchallenged was the suggestion that he might not have listened to an official of the TGWU, conceivably a rather obscure official. He was very quick off the mark about that. He should not imagine that we on the Opposition Benches do not notice that he can thrust aside the merits of an argument but that the merest suggestion that he has not taken notice of the TGWU brings him to his feet immediately.

Mr. Harold Walker: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman obviously did not understand the reason for my intervention. It was merely that it had been suggested that I had said or done something of which I had no recollection. I have a pretty good memory, and I find ground for offence when people attribute to me things that I have not said or done.

Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry to catch the hon. Gentleman on a point where he


obviously feels rather sensitive. I repeat that I noticed with interest that the substantial arguments advanced by my hon. Friends on the merits drew no response from him, but that he was on his feet not twice but three times on that other matter.
My second reason for intervening arises from the speech of the Secretary of State, a most agreeable man. When I was Minister responsible for sport he and I used to swim together, and I came to have a great deal of regard for him. But in his speech the right hon. Gentleman said that we were dealing with appeals on questions of disputes that might turn on the use of a tape measure or an Ordnance Survey map. He took refuge in the belief that if the question of the five-mile limit arose, the course of law could best determine how to use the map and the tape measure. As one who comes to the Bill anxious to consider the arguments on either side objectively, I am appalled to think that the great ports industry and the cold storage industry are now to turn on such matters as the interpretation of an Ordnance Survey sheet and the use of a tape measure. It is preposterous.
My third reason for intervening is the matter of the National Freight Corporation. I have a good deal of admiration for the corporation. I was in part responsible for the appointment of the chairman, Sir Daniel Pettit, a first-class manager. I am delighted that he is there. But I drew from the Minister's reply to one of my hon. Friends the following strange conclusions, on which I hope his hon. Friend the most agreeable hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) will comment.
First, a cold store worker who falls within the ambit of the Bill will become a de facto docker when it is passed. For all practical purposes he will be reclassified as a docker if he works in a cold store. But if the cold store is subsequently sold to Sir Daniel Pettit and the National Freight Corporation, the same man doing the same job ceases to be a docker and presumably becomes a cold storage worker again.
Let us suppose that the corporation sells the store once again. Over a period that could be as short as a year or so, the way these things happen com-

mercially, the Bill will have made him a a docker, when he was not a docker; then he will have ceased to be a docker; and later he will have become a docker again. That is crazy. It cannot be right to bring into effect this strange redefinition of work in respect of the National Freight Corporation and schemes falling under the Bill. I beg the Minister, who is a sensible and practical man, to see that there is a much more sensible definition.
Having divested myself of the minutiae, I come to one or two more substantial matters. The clauses deal essentially with the matter of an appeal, the settlement of disputes if they arise. I do not believe that there is much doubt in the House or the country that there will be disputes. One of the besetting sins of British industry over the past 20 years under all Governments has been that of demarcation disputes—who bores the holes, who puts on the tar? We all want to avoid them. But there is no doubt that where men believe, rightly or wrongly, that their jobs are threatened, they will seek to protect them by reasonable and, occasionally, unreasonable methods. That is the nature of work. Therefore, the Minister must provide for disputes. He would not be prudent if he did not.
The question is simply when—not "if"—disputes arise, how they are to be arbitrated. The Minister took refuge in the fact that there were always the courts and this House. I do not believe that either is remotely satisfactory. The courts fall for two reasons. First, the matter can become justiciable only on a narrow point of law. It will arise only if the question of vires is at issue. But in such matters the great arguments will instead be about whether the store, the court or the job in question falls on one side or the other of the line. Many people—drivers, cold store workers, dockers and the newspapers—will have strong views. The worst thing to do is to go all the way to the courts, unless that cannot be avoided.
When my right hon. and hon. Friends and I were putting the Industrial Relations Act on the statute book the Minister of State and many of his hon. Friends fairly made the point that the matters with which it dealt should be handled with common sense, that there should be consultation in dealing with men at work. "For heaven's sake, avoid


the courts!" they told us. As I look back, I think that they had a point. Let us not go to the courts now if we can avoid it. Surely that must be the common sense of the matter, and therefore when the Secretary of State, agreeable though he is, suggested that we should rely on the courts, he was merely going back on his and his party's philosophy in this matter. He must know that the courts are the last place to get to. They should be avoided if it is at all possible.
Secondly, if the courts are brought In to deal with Ordnance Survey maps and tape measures, they have to make firm decisions—flat, hard, clear decisions. If we get to the end of the line, with the ultimate powers of the courts having been used and the dockers or the road hauliers still do not like the decision, they will be up against contempt, they will be up against imprisonment, and we shall be back where we started to the whole question of the dock workers who had to go to gaol and the Official Solicitor who had to be brought in to get them out again.
It must not be the intention of the Government to shove these matters on to the courts—the decision, the contempt and the imprisonment and the fact that any dispute becomes a dispute with the law of the land. Surely it must be right, if at all possible, to avoid that, and that is precisely what these clauses seek to do. They provide what I can only describe as an earthwork before one gets to the courts. That is wise, and I ask the Minister to consider it.

Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman has been embarking upon a kind of confessional. Is he saying that his Government were wrong in forcing through legislation that inevitably involved the courts? If he is, his speech is rather interesting, but it is not a matter of relating that unhappy episode to the situation where we are not involved with that conclusion.

Mr. Griffiths: It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to describe my speech as interesting. I thought it was fairly interesting.
I do not think that there is much point in my going back into the past. I was

begging the Minister not to fall into the trap into which his right hon. Friend suggested we might have been falling in the past. The situation then was that we had a responsible Government. That is not the situation now. The hon. Gentleman is being asked to support an irresponsible Government. I do not believe that we need to get involved in these small details.
My second point—and it arises from some modest experience in Government in these matters—is that this House, for which all of us, save only the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), have the deepest affection, is the worst possible place to make decisions about the details of demarcation between one kind of work and another. This House, by any measure, is a broad-brush place. It is a place that considers arguments and comes to conclusions on principles. That is why all Governments make Orders. It is Orders that carry out the intention or the spirit of an Act in detail.
The Minister suggests that these clauses are unacceptable because there is always either the courts or the House to deal with appeals and details. The House is no last resort at all on details, and I think that the Minister, for whom I have great affection, was being a little disingenuous when he suggested that we should always have an affirmative Order. We can have a debate on such an Order if we can raise 30 Members late at night. The Minister knows that that is not the way in which one organises things. Whatever else Parliament is for, it is not to decide disputes between one lot of workers and another.
That being so, we come to the crux of this little debate. If, as I believe to be the case, the courts are not the place to settle these disputes—and I am sure that the Minister does not want to get into the courts if he can avoid it—and if Parliament is not the place either, there has to be something else. That is logical and clear, and these clauses suggest alternative appeals.
6.15 p.m.
One clause suggests that there should be appeals to an industrial tribunal, and I am attracted to that idea. The other clause speaks of ACAS, and I am equally attracted to that suggestion. What the Secretary of State did not deal with, and


I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal with it later on, is why, if he accepts that we should avoid the courts and not rely on the House, neither of these well-established and well-regarded bodies is acceptable. What is wrong with ACAS? We rely upon it at present. I think that we have relied upon it to perform miracles in all kinds of places. What is wrong with its acting in this context? As we require others to go to industrial tribunals on so many other things, what is wrong with industrial tribunals in this connection?
The Minister did not deal with those two points, and therefore he did not deal with the crux of the debate, which is that if there are to be disputes, how are they to be settled? No adequate answer has been provided to that question, and I hope that the Minister will give one.

Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) made his usual kind of speech arising out of a state of limited knowledge. He concluded by saying that New Clause 5 refers to the notion of having a tribunal, and he is attracted to that, and New Clause 1 refers to the use of the ACAS, and he is equally attracted to that. I presume that that is the measure of his attraction.
The hon. Gentleman made an interesting speech—he said so himself. He is very fond of his speeches. Not many Members respond, but he nevertheless finds his speeches interesting. I presume that his judgment of this matter is that an industrial tribunal can use a tape measure better than can a court, and that ACAS can use a tape measure better than can the House of Commons. That is the measure of his judgment.
The hon. Gentleman said nothing else. What he forgot to say to the House is that ACAS was set up principally to deal with industrial disputes. It is not a matter of vires, of extra legal implications, and the tribunal notion does little more than add to a great deal of confusion that has already been referred to in this debate.
The hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) said that people were in fear of their jobs. I agree, and the reason is that they have been fed the wrong kind of information by the wrong kind of people. Before the Bill went into Com-

mittee the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) was almost never off the television talking about people's fears and tribulations and about the unholy mess that would result in the docks from the passing of the Bill, but week after week in Committee the right hon. Gentleman was muted. His loud noises were silenced. During the long Committee stage we had a completely different performance from that which Conservative Members produced for public consumption, and their statements in Committee were one reason for the fears referred to by the hon. Lady.
Let us consider the official stance of the unions. I shall be corrected by my hon. Friend if I am wrong. On 21st January of this year, at the transportation committee of the TUC, approximately 19 signatories agreed unanimously to the Bill. I will read it for the benefit of Conservative Members, because they have plenty to say on these matters. The report states:
At their meeting today, the TUC Transport Industries Committee gave unanimous support to the Dock Work Regulation Bill, the Second Reading of which is to take place shortly. It was agreed that in order to ensure that the language of the Bill adequately covers the points which have for some time been understood and agreed by all the unions, the Minister will be asked to consider some drafting amendments for the Committee stage.
I am not unaware of the fact that those drafting amendments appeared and were fully considered, in my view to the satisfaction of all the participants. The report then sets out the names of the unions represented at the meeting, numbering about 10. I will not mention them.
We have looked very carefully at the case put forward by the cold storage people. None of us has minimised the seriousness of their position. They have expressed their concern. None of us has been persuaded that the principle of negotiation cannot overcome some of their major worries.
The dock workers have a right to receive support in this House for their future security of employment. They want the sort of security of employment that is enjoyed by nearly every professional body in this country.
Conservative Members have repeatedly indicated their concern and alarm that


on the Government side we are anxious once and for all to give the dock workers proper conditions of employment. These workers have suffered over some 30 years a dramatic cut in their manning levels. At one time they numbered some 270,000. In a short period, due to technological changes and changes in port operations, their number has gone down to 32,000.

Mr. Loyden: My hon. Friend has touched on a very important point. The Opposition's argument concerning the National Dock Labour Board and the protection it affords to dock workers—a protection not necessarily enjoyed by other workers—is that it is unfair on other workers. If we believe that the protection afforded to dock workers is right and proper from our point of view, will not my hon. Friend agree that we ought to be thinking of extending protection to other workers, rather than depriving those workers who enjoy it at the moment?

Mr. Leadbitter: Certainly. I fail to understand why Conservative Members ridicule the sense of urgency that we have in our desire to give to the workers in this country proper standards of employment, security of employment, and confidence in their own industries.
The trade union movement has the capacity, the experience and the will to negotiate improvements in conditions in a manner which need not in any way involve the courts. It was the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds who referred to the courts and the Official Solicitor. But he, as a member of the previous Government, was associated with legislation which pushed the workers of this country against the wall, and put dock workers in prison. The hon. Member admits today in this House that the Official Solicitor had to be brought in when his Government found themselves in an embarrassing situation. Bearing that in mind, it is rather shocking that he should now be criticising the Government as he has.
The Bill seeks to widen and broaden the areas of negotiation. The procedures laid down in the Bill make it abundantly clear that dock workers may have to wait many months before they see an improvement, because the scheme will take at least 18 months to two years to produce.

Mr. Iain MacCormick: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument, but when is a docker not a docker? The hon. Gentleman mentioned the fall in the number of dock workers. I remind him that there has been a great fall in the number of coal miners. Does the principle behind the Bill mean that coal miners could be employed on oil rigs?

Mr. Leadbitter: That is just as irrelevant and illogical as asking when is a solicitor not a solicitor, or when is an architect not an architect. It has nothing at all to do with the argument. The Bill is not dealing with individuals in that personal sense. It is classifying work.
There is an important lesson to be learned from the professional bodies in this country. No professional body defines the nature of its work better or more militantly than the British Medical Association acting on behalf of doctors. There is no body which defines its work better, and more probably, than the lawyers.
The great wealth of this country is produced by those who work in our industries. Over the centuries they have not had a fair share or the right to security of employment. Instead of the claptrap of New Clause 1 and New Clause 5, the Bill introduces measures which are calculated to improve conditions of employment.
Quite sensibly, the Government have decided not to write every dot and dash into the Bill. Instead, they have decided upon a board. Incidentally, I notice that there is no amendment to deal with that. The board will produce the scheme as a result of a process of negotiation involving the TUC, the CBI, and local interests. This having been done, there will be proper public notice given before any recommendation is made. The recommendation will come to the Secretary of State, and an order will be brought before the House.
I see no reason at all to inject into that machinery any further delaying mechanism. Already some of us are expressing anxiety about the time scale involved. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Lowestoft has had far more to say outside the House of Commons on this matter than any of us. He must learn to sit back and be patient. He lost the


leadership of his party because he was too anxious. Let him be patient.
I put it to the House that it would be completely fatuous to introduce into the Bill machinery such as that provided by ACAS, which is for the purpose of dealing with industrial disputes. The Bill is intended to deal with something completely outside that area.
As to the suggestion that there should be a tribunal, this is against the spirit of the negotiating principles already embodied in the Bill. Schedule 4 outlines the procedures to the satisfaction of Government Members. Opposition Members would do well to stop their delaying tactics and give themselves more time to get on with their further amendments.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Harold Walker: I sense that the House is anxious to conclude this debate and reach a decision on the new clause. I hope that the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) and the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) will forgive me if I do not respond to their points about the cargo-handling zones in their constituencies. If I attempted to do so, I should trespass upon the subject matter of the debate which is to follow and which deals specifically with the cargo-handling zones.
Right hon. and hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will recall that we debated these matters fully during the Committee stage. Having listened carefully to the debate today, I have heard little new and certainly nothing which convinces me that my replies in Committee were not correct.
Right hon. and hon. Members have overlooked the fact that we have been discussing provisions in Part I of Schedule 3 which arrange for work which may be classified as dock work. The whole debate has tended to run on the assumption that those provisions are mandatory in respect of the classification as dock work of the various activities listed there. However, I urge the House to understand that Part I of Schedule 3 provides merely for the range of work which may be subject to classification.
The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) said several times that what was really needed was a sensitive procedure to enable classification Orders to be

examined and decided. But that is precisely what the Bill sets out to do. One of its fundamental purposes is to provide just that sensitive procedure which will enable us to reach decisions on these matters.
The procedures are embodied in provisions of Clauses 7, 8 and 9 and Schedule 4. I shall not take the House through all those hoops, though I would point out to the hon. Member for Pudsey and those of his hon. Friends who made specific reference to the possible extension of the scheme to cold storage and warehousing that set out in Clause 8 and Schedule 4 is a series of tests which have to be satisfied before we reach the point with which New Clauses 1 and 5 attempt to deal. It is part of our reply to those who seek to insert another democratic check that a series of democratic checks is already built into the legislation. We have the provisions for consultation and the provisions for representations to be made before the Secretary of State finally makes an Order.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Would the Minister of State care to comment on the assurance given by the then Secretary of State on Second Reading when he said that matters which were not directly related to work transferred from the docks and which are not connected with port operations, which included the cold storage industry, would not be classified as dock work? Is the Minister prepared to repeat that assurance?

Mr. Harold Walker: We made a number of amendments in Committee specifically directed to providing safeguards for those who expressed that kind of anxiety. We inserted, for example, the provision about the union which had been in situ before 18th September 1967 having a veto over classification. Then there was the provision relating to the mixed situation where some work in a cold store, a warehouse or other situation could be classified and other work there would not be eligible for classification. Clearly this is a matter which has to be taken into account.
I stress again, however, that by and large the provisions of the Bill are essentially enabling powers. They enable the new National Dock Labour Board to submit its proposals for a scheme. The scheme will be prepared on the strength


of those submissions and after further consideration by the Secretary of State. Eventually it will be subject to the affirmative procedure of this House. Under the umbrella of that scheme, my right hon. Friend will proceed to the making of classification Orders according to the locality and the needs and circumstances of the locality. Again, the Orders will be subject to the veto of this House.
We have built in this series of safeguards to take account of the assurances which have been given. If the Secretary of State says that it is his view that such work will not be eligible for classification because it will not satisfy the tests or because it may cause harmful and unwelcome industrial relations problems, it will be ultimately a matter for his judgment and not an automatic procedure taken out of his hands.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State talked of people wishing to challenge the vires of classification and having the right of recourse to the courts. He went on to point out the power of this House to veto an Order. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) described this as taking a sledgehammer to a very small nut. However, I must point out to him that these two provisions are inescapable anyhow, even if we adopted the procedures recommended in New Clauses 1 and 5. If, for example, the industrial tribunal or ACAS and the Central Arbitration Committee were brought into the procedure, subsequently there would still have to be the making of an Order and the submission of it by the Secretary of State with the power to make modifications as he deemed appropriate. The order-making power is still there, as is the order-making responsibility, and hence the right of this House is still there. We do not remove that by accepting New Clause 1 or New Clause 5.
What is more, we cannot take away the right to challenge the vires of an Order. Obviously that must remain. But a difficulty could arise if we had an industrial tribunal—and even more so if we adopted New Clause 1, bearing in mind that neither ACAS nor the CAC is set up or equipped to deal with legal decisions—making decisions which subsequently might be reversed in a court on a vires challenge. It would be an unfortunate development if that occurred.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it is clear that the House is anxious to reach a decision on this matter. I am not persuaded by the arguments which have been advanced today any more than I was by those put forward in Standing Committee. I know, too, that that is the view of my right hon. Friend. We must urge the House to resist both these new clauses.

Mr. Baker: It is usual when replying to a debate of this kind to say that it has been a good debate. I regret that I cannot say that today, though not for any lack of excellent speeches from my right hon. and hon. Friends. The essence of a debate is that there should be a conflict of ideas and a clash of argument. That has been singularly lacking in the past three hours.
What is more, the argument for having a guillotine is that it provides equal time to Back Benchers on both sides of the House and ensures that they have an opportunity to put forward their arguments. In this debate we have had eight speeches from the Opposition Benches but only two from Government supporters. In one of them, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) took a trip down memory lane but did not defend the principle of the Bill. The only Government supporter to do that was the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), who speaks for dockers and dockland. This Bill is about dockers and dockland.
I thank the Minister of Stale for the courtesy of his reply. He is the work-horse of the Department of Employment. He has to take through Committee the Bills which his masters introduce. He took the Employment Protection Bill through Committee, and now he has taken this Bill through Committee. There are four other Ministers in the Department. I do not suppose that many right hon. and hon. Members know that. I dare say hardly anyone could name them. However, the hon. Gentleman had his just reward, because during the Committee stage of the Bill he was promoted from Under-Secretary to Minister of State.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I do not believe that he addressed himself to the argument put forward by the Opposition. The argument put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member


for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) was simply that this Bill, unique in our industrial legislation, will give to one group of workers, for the first time in our economic and industrial history, a legal right to claim the jobs of other men. That is the essence of the Bill. That is what it is all about.
If the Bill is not about that, it is not needed. The justification for the Bill was that there was a declining work force in dockland. There were 80,000 dockers in 1945 and at the last count, in December 1975, there were 31,000. The National Dock Labour Board admits that there are jobs for about 26,000. Clause 1 of the original social contract way back in 1974 was that this was a way to give the declining work force an opportunity of job security. The points raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends have been related to this issue.
If we give to one group of workers the legal right to claim other people's jobs, the consequences will be considerable. This is bound to lead to a series of industrial disputes. The Bill will be a seed-bed of discontent. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) asked what would happen when the Minister made an Order to put into a scheme a warehouse which was later bought by the National Freight Corporation, which is excluded from the scheme. Some members of the NFC would be registered dockers and some would not.
The obscurity concerning the definition of dock work is profound. It is natural, because in Clause 5(7) of the Bill it is said that the scheme which we are being asked to approve in this truncated debate may.
contain different provisions for different circumstances and combinations of circumstances.
It is as broad as it is long and as wide as it is deep. Such vague definitions are bound to lead to industrial unrest. This fact has been recognised. The representations made to us by those who work in the dockers' corridor have revealed their anxieties that their jobs will be taken from them by the dockers.

Mr. Harold Walker: I deliberately avoided taking up this point in an attempt to save the time of the House, because I thought that the position of the Opposition had been made clear beyond doubt by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft

(Mr. Prior), who put forward a different argument—indeed, he argued the contrary case. Since the hon. Gentleman is pursuing the matter, may I make it clear that we still stand by the words of my right hon. Friend the present Leader of the House, who on Second Reading said:
I repeat that the suggestions that workers will be pushed out of their jobs—in the kind of extravagant language used by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior)—are grossly misleading."—[Official Report, 10th February 1976; Vol. 905, c. 268–9.]

Mr. Baker: That is the sum total of the assurances we have received. We had that statement on Second Reading, but nothing was done in Committee. There is still considerable anxiety, as we have seen from the Amendment Paper today. Look at the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends whose constituencies are suddenly discovered to be in the dockers' corridor. The Minister's own constituency of Doncaster is included. That well-known port of Taunton is affected. There is the other well-known port of Newark. The Amendment Paper is littered with the anxieties of my hon. Friends who have received representations from their constituents. My hon. Friends who represent large parts of Lincolnshire and Cornwall are affected. Most of Cornwall has suddenly become part of the dockers' corridor. There is anxiety, and it is the refusal of Ministers to recognise this that had led to a great deal of confusion.
In these new clauses we seek to recognise that anxiety and the fact that this is no longer a family affair, a cosy deal between dock workers and dock employers behind dock walls in dockland. We are now taking in tens of thousands of companies. Hundreds of thousands of employees will find themselves subject to the provisions of the Bill because the factories, warehouses and cold stores lie within the dockers' corridor. When things have broadened so much, safeguards must be built in.
6.45 p.m.
That is why in New Clause 1 we recommend that there should be a right of appeal. That is why we put forward a right to a public inquiry in New Clause 2 and a right of appeal to ACAS in New Clause 5. We consider that this is entirely justified. The arguments of the Minister and his colleagues are totally unconvincing to us and to the country at


large. There is no economic case for the Bill. It will not create one extra job. It will create a series of disputes about jobs. We have been at pains to point this out. The Bill is economically unjustified, industrially damaging and politically foolish. We should show our

opposition by voting against it later tonight and by voting for these clauses now.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 298.

Division No. 278.]
AYES
[6.45 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Fell, Anthony
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Aitken, Jonathan
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Kirk, Sir Peter


Alison, Michael
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Arnold, Tom
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Knight, Mrs Jill


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Forman, Nigel
Knox, David


Awdry, Daniel
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Lamont, Norman


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Fox, Marcus
Lane, David


Baker, Kenneth
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Langford-Hott, Sir John


Banks, Robert
Freud, Clement
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Beith, A. J.
Fry, Peter
Lawrence, Ivan


Bell, Ronald
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lawson, Nigel


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Benyon,W.
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Loveridge, John


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Luce, Richard


Bitten, John
Glyn, Dr Alan
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Biggs-Davison, John
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
MacCormick, Iain


Blaker, Peter
Goodhart, Philip
McCrindle, Robert


Body, Richard
Goodhew, Victor
Macfarlane, Neil


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodlad, Alastair
MacGregor, John


Bottomley, Peter
Gorst, John
Macmillan, Rt Hon W (Farnham)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Madel, David


Brittan, Leon
Gray, Hamish
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Brotherton, Michael
Griffiths, Eldon
Marten, Neil


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mates, Michael


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grist, Ian
Maude, Angus


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Grylls, Michael
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Buck, Antony
Hall, Sir John
Mawby, Ray


Budgen, Nick
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bulmer, Esmond
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mayhew, Patrick


Burden, F. A.
Hampson, Dr Keith
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hamam,John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Carlisle, Mark
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mills, Peter


Carson, John
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Miscampbell, Norman


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hastings, Stephen
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Channon, Paul
Havers, Sir Michael
Moate, Roger


Churchill, W. S.
Hawkins, Paul
Monro, Hector


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hayhoe, Barney
Montgomery, Fergus


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Henderson, Douglas
More, Jasper (Lud'ow)


Clegg, Walter
Heseltlne, Michael
Morgan, Geraint


Cockcroft, John
Hicks, Robert
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Higgins, Terence L.
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Cope,John
Holland, Philip
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Cordle, John H.
Hooson, Emlyn
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Cormack, Patrick
Hordern, Peter
Mudd, David


Corrie, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Neave, Airey


Costain, A. P.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Nelson, Anthony


Crawford, Douglas
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Neubcrt, Michael


Critchley, Julian
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Newton, Tony


Crouch, David
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Normanton, Tom


Crowder, F. P.
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Nott, John


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hurd, Douglas
Onslow, Cranley


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Osborn, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
James, David
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Drayson, Burnaby
Jenkln, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Page, Rt Hon R. Grarnm (Crosby)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Jessel, Toby
Paisley, Rev Ian


Durant, Tony
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Pardoe, John


Dykes, Hugh
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Parkinson, Cecil


Eden, Rl Hon Sir John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Penhaligon, David


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Jopling, Michael
Percival, Ian


Elliott, Sir William
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Emery, Peter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pink, P Bonner


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Keliett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Powell. Rt Hon J. Enoch


Eyre, Reginald
Kershaw, Anthony
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Kilfedder, James
Prior, Rt Hon James


Fairgrleve, Russell
Kimball, Marcus
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Farr, John
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Raison, Timothy




Rathbone, Tim
Sinclair, Sir George
Trotter, Neville


Reos, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Tugendhat, Christopher


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Reid, George
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Speed, Keith
Viggers, Peter


Renlon, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Spence, John
Wakeham, John


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Ridsdale, Julian
Sproat, Iain
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon sir Derek


Rifkind, Malcolm
Stainton, Keith
Wall, Patrick


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Walters, Dennis


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stanley, John
Warren, Kenneth


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Watt, Hamish


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Weatherill, Bernard


Ross, William (Londonderry)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Wells, John


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Welsh, Andrew


Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Stokes, John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Sainsbury, Tim
Stradling. Thomas J.
Wiggin, Jerry


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Tapsell, Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Scott, Nicholas
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Scott-Hopkins, James
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Tebbit, Norman
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Temple-Morris, Peter
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Younger, Hon George


Shepherd, Colin
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)



Shersby, Michael
Thompson, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Silvester, Fred
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Mr. Carol Mather and


Sims, Roger
Townsend, Cyril D.
Mr. Jim Lester.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Cronin, John
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Allaun, Frank
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Grant, John (Islington C)


Anderson, Donald
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Grocott, Bruce


Archer, Peter
Cryer, Bob
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Armstrong, Ernest
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Ashley, Jack
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hardy, Peter


Ashton, Joe
Dalyeil, Tam
Harper, Joseph


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Davidson, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Atkinson, Norman
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hatton, frank


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Bates, Alt
Deakins, Eric
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bean, R. E.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Heffer, Eric S.


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hooley, Frank


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dempsey, James
Horam, John


Bldwell, Sydney
Doig, Peter
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham.Sm H)


Bishop, E. S.
Dormnnd, J. D.
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Huckfleld, Les


Boardman, H.
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Eadie, Alex
Hunter, Adam


Bradley, Tom
Edge, Geoff
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Ellis, John (Brlgg &amp; Scun)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
English, Michael
Janner, Greville


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Ennals, David
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Buchan, Norman
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Buchanan, Richard
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Evans, John (Newton)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
John, Brynmor


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Campbell, Ian
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Canavan, Dennis
Flannery, Martin
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cant, R. B.
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Carmichael, Neil
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Judd, Frank


Carter, Ray
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Kaufman, Gerald


Cartwright, John
Ford, Ben
Kelley, Richard


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Forrester, John
Kerr, Russell


Clemitson, Ivor
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Kilroy-Sllk, Robert


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Kinnock, Neil


Cohen, Stanley
Freeson, Reginald
Lamble, David


Coleman, Donald
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lamborn, Harry


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lamond, James


Concannon, J. D.
George, Bruce
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Conlan, Bernard
Gilbert, Dr John
Leadbitter, Ted


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Ginsburg, David
Lee, John


Corbett, Robin
Golding, John
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Cox, Thomas (Tooling)
Gould, Bryan
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cralgen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Gourlay, Harry
Lipton, Marcus


Crawshaw, Richard
Graham, Ted
Litterick, Tom







Lomas, Kenneth
Palmer, Arthur
Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R.


Loyden, Eddie
Park, George
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Parker, John
Swain, Thomas


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Parry, Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


McCartney, Hugh
Pavitt, Laurie
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Perry, Ernest
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


MacKenzie, Gregor
Phipps, Dr Colin
Tierney, Sydney


Mackintosh, John P.
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Tomlinson, John


Maclennan, Robert
Prescott, John
Tomney, Frank


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Torney, Tom


Madden, Max
Price, William (Rugby)
Tuck, Raphael


Magee, Bryan
Radice, Giles
Urwin, T. W.


Mahon, Simon
Richardson, Miss Jo
Varley, Rt. Hon Eric G.


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Marquand, David
Robinson, Geoffrey
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Ward, Michael


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Watkins, David


Maynard, Miss Joan
Rooker, J. W.
Watkinson, John


Meacher, Michael
Roper, John
Weetch, Ken


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Weitzman, David


Mendelson, John
Rowlands, Ted
Wellbeloved, James


Mikardo, Ian
Sandelson, Neville
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Millan, Bruce
Sedgemore, Brian
White, James (Pollok)


Miller. Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Selby, Harry
Whitehead, Phillip


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Whitlock, William


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Moonman, Eric
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Moyle, Roland
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)'
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Sillars, James
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Silverman, Julius
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Newens. Stanley
Skinner, Dennis
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Noble, Mike
Small, William
Woodall, Alec


Oakes, Gordon
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Woof, Robert


Ogden, Eric
Spearing, Nigel
Wrigglesworth, Ian


O'Halloran, Michael
Spriggs, Leslie
Young, David (Bolton E)


Orbach, Maurice
Stallard, A. W.



Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ovenden, John
Stoddart, David
Mr. James Tinn and


Owen, Dr David
Stott, Roger
Mr. Peter Snape.


Padley, Walter
Strang, Gavin

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

EXCLUDED AREAS

'This Act shall not apply to any place which is not within five miles (in a direct line) of a harbour.'—[Mr. Brittan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Leon Brittan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this we may take New Clause 4 (Small harbours) and the following amendments:
No. 21, in Clause 4, page 4, line 14, leave out 'five miles' and insert 'half a mile'.
No. 22, in page 4, line 15, leave out from 'of' to end of line 32 and insert
'any dock estate or harbour but excluding any establishment not capable of handling cargo

direct from waterborne craft unless such establishment is to a material extent engaged in work transferred from a dock estate or harbour, being work which immediately before the date of this enactment was work exclusively undertaken by registered dockworkers'.
No. 23, in page 4, line 15, leave out
'the nearest point on the sea'
and insert
'any harbour—

(i) which is capable at mean highwater of handling ships having a draught in excess of twenty feet; or
(ii) at which the hours worked in the twelve months ended on 3rd December 1975 by a person engaged in loading cargo into, or unloading cargo from, ships exceeded (on being averaged with the hours so worked by other persons so engaged during that period) 1,350'.

No. 24, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any airport or market'.
No. 25, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the port of Whitstable, Kent'.
No. 26, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the port of Whitby'.


No. 27, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the port of Harwich (Navyard)'.
No. 28, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the port of Wivenhoe.
No. 29, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the port of Mistley
No. 30, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the port of Mostyn or the Borough of Delyn'.
No. 31, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the district of Bournemouth'.
No. 32, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the district of West Norfolk'.
No. 33, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the port of Wells'.
No. 34, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part Newhaven, Sussex'.
No. 35, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the District Harborough'
No. 36, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the port of Watchet'
No. 37, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the port of Lymington'
No. 38, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the District of Rochford'
No. 39, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the District of Maldon'
No. 40, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the port of Maldon'
No. 41, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the port of Burnham on Crouch'.
No. 42, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the District of Castle Point'.
No. 43, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the port of Folkestone.
No. 44, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the district of Tewkesbury'.
No. 45, in page 4, line 18, at end add
'but shall not include any part of the Borough of Beverley'.

No. 46, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the docking or wharfage facilities at Selby'
No. 47, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the port of Bromborough Dock.'
No. 48, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the ports of Fawley and Eling'
No. 49, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the harbour at Annan'.
No. 50, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the harbour at Dumfries'.
No. 51, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the port of Gloucester'.
No. 52, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the port of Richborough'.
No. 53, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the port of Dover'.
No. 54, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of a port or shipping place on the coasts of North Yorkshire and Humberside between Filey and Spurn Point'.
No. 55, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the port of Teignmouth'
No. 56, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the port of Scarborough'.
No. 57, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'but shall not include any port of the ports of Newburgh (Fife), St. Andrews, Crail, Anstruther, Pittenweem, Cellardyke, St. Monans, Elie, and Largo'.
No. 58, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include any part of Braehead, Renfrew, in the District of Renfiew'
No. 59, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include any part of the town of Winsford, Cheshire'.
No. 60, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include part of the District of Chester'
No. 61, in page 4, line 18, at end add:
'but shall not include any part of the port of Margate'.
No. 62, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include any part of the docking or wharfage facilities at Largs'


No. 63, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include any part of the harbour at Lamlash, Arran'.
No. 64, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include any part of the port of Bridport'
No. 65, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include any part of the port of Lyme Regis'.
No. 66, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include any part of the airport of Manston'
No. 67, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include any part of the hoverport of Pegwell Bay'.
No. 68, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include any part of the port of Ramsgate'
No. 69, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include any part of the harbour of Broadstairs'.
No. 70, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include any part of the area within the jurisdiction of the Milford Haven Conservancy Board as defined in the Milford Haven Conservancy Acts 1958–1975 or of The Milford Dock Company'.
No. 71, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include any of the part of the ports of Lancaster or Glasson Dock'.
No. 72, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include any part of the ports of Cley, Cromer or Sheringham'
No. 73, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include any part of the port of Littlehampton'
No. 74, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include any part of the commercial port of Portsmouth'.
No. 75, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include any part of the port of Gainsborough'
No. 76, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
but shall not include any part of the port of Keadby'.

No. 77, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include any part of the port of Montrose'.
No. 78, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include any part of the port of Lancaster'.
No. 79, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include any part of the port of Exeter'.
No. 80, in page 4, line 18:
'but shall include any part of the Port of Topsham'.
No. 81, in page 4, line 18, at end add:
'but shall not include any part of the port of Southport'.
No. 248, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include any part of the harbour of Hastings'.
No. 250, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include any part of the ports of Lulworth Cove or Portland, Swanage'.
No. 252, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include any part of the port of Colchester'.
No. 254, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include any part of the port of Southwold'.
No. 260, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include any port on the islands of Coll, Tiree, Mull, Iona, Lismore, Colonsay, Jura, Islay, Giglia and Luing, or any part on the mainland of Argyll'.
No. 261, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include any part of the port of Cullercoats'.
No. 263, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include any port in the islands of Lewis, Harris, North Uist, South Uist, Benbecula or Barra'.
No. 281, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include any part of the district of Huntingdon'.
No. 282, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include any part of the district and City of Peterborough'.


No. 283, in page 4, line 18, insert:
'but shall not include any part of the ports of Torquay or Brixham'
No. 286, in page 4, line 18, at end insert.
'but shall not include any part of the port of Chepstow'.
No. 288, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include any part of the port of Looe'
In page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'but shall not include any part of the port of Polperro'
No. 292, in page 4, line 18, at end add:
'but shall not include any part of the Districts of Woodspring or Sedgemoor'
No. 82, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'(c) this zone shall not include any port where the annual average tonnage of cargo landed is less than 1 million tons;
(d) this zone shall not include any part of the following island groups; the Outer Hebrides, the Inner Hebrides, the Orkney Islands, the Shetland Islands and the Isle of Wight.'
No. 83, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
'(3A) The port of Shoreham and the relevant cargo-handling zone is defined in subsection (3) above shall be excluded from the operations of the draft Scheme'.
No. 268, in page 4, line 23, after 'river', insert:
'until such waters reach a point inland at which they cease to be one hundred metres wide at mean high water'.
No. 269, in page 4, line 26, at end insert:
'or anywhere incapable of being navigated by ships of gross registered tonnage of 6,000 tons or more'.
No. 84, in page 4, line 33, leave out subsection (6).
No. 270, in page 4, line 33, leave out subsections (6) and (7).
No. 85, in page 4, line 37, at end insert:
'other than any part of the port of Whitstable, Kent'.
No. 86, in page 4, line 37, at end insert:
'other than any part of the port of Whitby'.
No. 87, in page 4, line 37, at end insert:
'other than any part of the port of Harwich (Navyard)'.

No. 88, in page 4, line 37, at end insert:
'other than any part of the port of Wivenhoe'.
No. 89, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the port of Mistley'.
No. 90, in page 4, line 37, at end insert:
'other than any part of the port of Mostyn or the Borough of Delyn'.
No. 91, in page 4, line 37, at end insert:
'other than any part of the district of Bournemouth'.
No. 92, in page 4, line 37, at end insert:
'other than any part of the district of West Norfolk'.
No. 93, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the Port of Wells'.
No. 94, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the port of Newhaven, Sussex'.
No. 95, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the district of Harborough'
No. 96, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the port of Watcher'
No. 97, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the port of Lymington'
No. 98, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the District of Rochford'
No. 99, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the District of Maldon'
No. 100, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the port of Maldon'
No. 101, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the putt of Burnham on Crouch'.
No. 102, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the District of Castle Point'.


No. 103, in page 4, line 37, at end add
'other than any part of the port of Folkestone'.
No. 104, in page 4, line 37, at end add
'other than any part of the district of Tewkesbury'.
No. 105, in page 4, line 37, at end add
'other than any part of the Borough of Beverley'.
No. 106, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the docking or wharfage facilities at Selby'
No. 107, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the port of Bromborough Dock'.
No. 108, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the ports of Fawley and Eling'
No. 109, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the harbour at Annan'.
No. 110, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the harbour at Dumfries'.
No. 111, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the port of Gloucester'
No. 112, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the port of Richborough'.
No. 113, in page 4, line 37, at end, insert
'other than any part of the port of Dover'.
No. 114, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of a port or shipping place on the coasts of North Yorkshire and Humberside between Filey and Spurn Point'.
No. 115, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the port of Teignmouth'
No. 116, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the ports at Newburgh (Fife), St. Andrews, Crail, Anstruther, Pittenweem, Cellardyke, St. Monans, Elie, and Largo'.
No. 117, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the District of Braehead, Renfrew'.

No. 118, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the town of Winsford, Cheshire'.
No. 119, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the District of Chester'.
No. 120, in page 4, line 37, at end add
'other than any part of the port of Margate'.
No. 121, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the docking or wharfage facilities at Largs'
No. 122, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the harbour Lamlash, Arran'.
No. 123, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the port of Bridport'.
No. 124, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the port of Lyme Regis'.
No. 125, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the airport of Manston'
No. 126, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the hover-port of Pegwell Bay'.
No. 127, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the port of Ramsgate'.
No. 128, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the harbour of Broadstairs'
No. 129, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'but shall not include any part of the area within the jurisdiction of the Milford Haven Conservancy Board as defined in the Milford Haven Conservancy Acts 1958–1975 or of The Milford Dock Company'.
No. 130, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any of the ports of Lancaster and Glasson Dock'.
No. 131, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the ports of Cley, Cromer or Sheringham'


No. 132, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the port of Littlehampton'
No. 133, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the commercial port of Portsmouth'.
No. 134, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the port of Gains-borough'.
No. 135, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the port of Keadby'.
No. 136, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the port of Montrose'.
No. 137, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'Other than any part of the port of Lancaster'.
No. 138, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the port of Exeter'.
No. 139, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the port of Topsham'.
No. 140, in page 4, line 37, at end add
'other than any part of the port of Southport'.
No. 249, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the harbour of Hastings'.
No. 251, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the ports of Lulworth Cove, Portland or Swanage'.
No. 253, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the port of Colchester'.
No. 255, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the port of Southwold'
No. 262, in page 4, line 37, at end add
'other than any part of the port of Culler-coats'.
No. 284, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the ports at Torquay or Brixham'.

No. 287, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the port of Chepstow'.
No. 290, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the port of Looe'.
No. 291, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
'other than any part of the port of Polperro'.
No. 293, in page 4, line 37, at end add
'other than any part of the Districts of Wood-spring or Sedgemoor'.
No. 141, in page 4, line 39, leave out subsection (7).
No. 264, in Clause 18, page 18, line 35, at end insert or to Scotland'.

Mr. Brittan: The purpose of this new clause and the amendments which are being taken with it is to exclude small ports from the operation of the Bill and to reduce the Government's powers in relation to the dockers' corridor, euphemistically described as the cargo-handling zone.
The Bill is genuinely reactionary because the whole progress of our history has been to progress from status to contract. The Bill seeks to operate in the opposite direction—it is a regression from contract, freely entered into between employers and employees, to status, where one's position in life depends not on what group one is in but on whether one is a docker.
The Bill originates from the problems of the Port of London and one or two other large ports. It is wholly inappropriate to deal with the problems of the small ports. One thing is clear. If there is the slightest merit in the Bill for large ports, the fact is that if it is imposed on small ports as well it will do immeasurable damage to them without in any way improving the position of the large ports. To extend the scheme to small ports is a misguided attempt to cure the disease by spreading the infection. It will add to costs, reduce flexibility of operation, and increase inefficiency.
Some small ports will be destroyed, others will be maimed. The overall result will be to increase unemployment in the ports concerned and to bring about severe hardship in many ports of the country, particularly in rural or outlying areas.
How will that come about? At the moment in the small ports there is usually a permanent labour force in the docks, supplemented when necessary by casual labour. In the smallest of the small ports, there is a system of labour employed as and when necessary to deal with traffic as and when it comes into the port.
What happens if the scheme is extended to these small ports? The answer is that there will be no more labour of a seasonal kind employed as and when necessary, and, therefore, one of two things could happen. Either all those employed on a permanent basis will be registered as dock workers, or casual workers who are employed from time to time will also be registered as dock workers. In the latter case, if the irregular casual labour force is given permanent employment and added to those who are already employed on a permanent basis, it is obvious that this will lead to huge increases in the operating costs of these ports, because there will be people employed on a permanent basis for whom there is only seasonal work. This will mean that the port will become less attractive to use and trade will go elsewhere. All the economic obscurantism of this misguided measure will not prevent decease and decline of the ports concerned.
What will happen if only the people who at the moment are employed on a permanent basis are registered as dock workers? I shall give an illustration. Whitby, in my constituency, is absolutely typical of what would happen in this situation. First of all, those who enjoy seasonal employment from time to time when they are required will lose their jobs altogether. They will be deprived of work in towns where unemployment is often a serious problem. The regular dock workers will gain nothing from the extension of the scheme to them in ports of this kind. They will not earn a penny more, because they already receive the same rates of pay, the same holiday pay, the same pensions and the same bonuses as those in the Dock Labour Scheme. In almost every case there is already a proper agreement with a union, usually the Transport and General Workers' Union. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a lack of adequate labour relations.
We are not talking about some maverick private enterprise concern or some kind of shark outfit in which speculators are concerned. These ports are all owned by the local authorities or comparable public bodies.
What will happen when the harbour is full and only the present permanent labour force is engaged? The normal irregular seasonal work force cannot be employed, so registered dock workers will have to be brought in from outside—from Teesside or the Humber. This will involve extra transport costs, delays and congestion on rural roads, and other problems which inevitably will be involved in so farcical a procedure as is envisaged in the Bill.
At present, the port of Whitby provides a service in which the turn-around time for a 700-ton ship is less than four hours. That service will no longer be available because the port's competitors will inevitably take its business away.

Mr. James Johnson: We have just heard a somewhat stilted and exaggerated sketch of the future scenario at Whitby. We have been told about the highways and byways being clogged with dockers going to Whitby to work from Humberside and Teesside. Does the hon. Gentleman have any figures to back this up?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Member is not doing justice to his argument by invoking a case which I have not put. What I have said is clear. What is more, it is a fact. It is the hon. Member's embarrassment about this which has led to his introducing a diversion of that kind.
If the situation is that only the present permanent people in any port of which Whitby is an example can be registered and employed at times when casual employment would normally be provided, people will have to be brought in from other registered ports. It is as simple as that, and the extent and scale of the problem will vary from place to place. But the service at present provided by a port which is able to turn round a 700-ton ship in four hours will no longer be available and the competitors will take the business away.
If the port declines as a result of the increased costs and as a result of the reduced flexibility which will obtain in


ports of this kind, what will be the situation? The registered dockers will certainly have their pay, because that is assured under the scheme. For their part, however, they will not find the consequences very congenial. As trade declines in the port in question, they may be compelled from time to time to work far afield. Ultimately, dockers who have made their homes nearby may have to move.
In short, therefore, the Bill will be a disaster for the small ports concerned. It will add further to unemployment, destroying small but efficient ports which are providing a uniquely valuable service for the areas surrounding them. Whitby is the example which comes naturally to me, but there will be many places which will be far worse off as a result of the decline or the eventual closure of their ports. There will be some cases in the remote areas where the port provides a lifeline to the surrounding hinterland or to the islands concerned. If the costs go up and the port cannot carry on on that basis, that lifeline will be destroyed. The commodities and goods upon which everyone in the area depends will have to be brought in from more distant ports. That will mean not only that supplies will be less assured in times of bad weather but that the costs will go up and rural and outlying areas will find that they are subject even more than usual to the high prices and difficulties from which rural areas suffer.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will not this be particularly serious in ports serving the farming areas? Specialist treatment is required for the transhipment of livestock, but not on a regular basis.

Mr. Brittan: That is a particularly vivid example of the ill that I am seeking to describe and which will be very widespread. Not only will the ports suffer. The towns to which the ports are attached will lose income and rates and will waste investment which has been sunk in the harbours concerned.
This is a recipe for disaster for the small ports which will have the scheme extended to them. What conceivable justification is there for damage of this kind being inflicted on a nation-wide basis? It cannot be to further industrial

relations, because the present situation is that those who are permanently employed in such ports are no worse off than those employed in the scheme ports. Those employed on a casual basis will be out of work altogether. It is difficult to see, therefore, what industrial relations argument there is in favour of the extension of the scheme to the small ports.
It is noteworthy that, according to the survey by the National Ports Council, the number of casual workers in the entire docks industry is 357, which is just over 1 per cent. of the total number of registered dock workers. Even in the non-scheme ports that represents only 14 per cent. of those employed. Therefore, it is farcical to present that—

Mr. Prescott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Britton: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman's Government have chosen to guillotine the Bill, and he and his hon. Friends must take the consequences of that in this debate, one of which is to have the pleasure of not hearing the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
7.15 p.m.
It has been argued as an alternative justification for this measly measure that the non-scheme ports have been expanding at the expense of the scheme ports and that there has been unfair competition by them which the big brothers in Liverpool and Hull cannot face. If that is so, one might ask whether it is coincidental that the ports which do not have the affliction of the scheme upon them seem to be doing so well. Is it right that the way to deal with that problem is to hang the albatross around everyone's neck?
The argument that the scheme ports have been losing to the non-scheme ports has been dropped by the Government. In an interesting exchange in Standing Committee, after a series of questions and answers, I said of the Secretary of State
I am trying to get the right hon. Gentleman to agree—in fact, I believe that he does agree—that, if the figures that he gave are correct, whatever other merits there may be to the Bill, there is one argument which cannot be made, namely, that the Bill is necessary to protect dock workers in Scheme ports against the threat or potential threat of those in non-Scheme ports. We should be greatly assisted if the Minister would say that the Bill may have other merits, but that the


proposition…is not its intention…and the Bill will not achieve such an aim.
Mr. Booth: I certainly agree that the hon. Gentleman's point does not form the sole merit of the Bill. It has never been part of my argument that that factor was a main justification for bringing forward the Bill.
Mr. Brittan: Or any justification.
Mr. Booth: I have not been reluctant to give way to hon. Gentlemen when we debate these matters. If that results in some degree of agreement between the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby and myself, that is a good thing. We are now agreed that non-Scheme ports will not flourish indefinitely and provide a threat to Scheme ports merely because they do not come within the conditions of the present Scheme."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 4th March 1976; c. 263.]
Therefore, that argument is exploded out of the water.
The other argument put forward which always struck me as being particularly doubtful was that it was necessary to introduce the scheme to the small ports because of the ILO Dock Work Convention of 1973. But the convention and the accompanying recommendation contain a degree of flexibility which renders it quite unnecessary to pass this legislation merely to comply with the convention. Under Article 1(1), the convention applies to persons who are regularly available for work as dock workers and depend on their work as such for their main annual income. The term "dock workers" means persons defined as such by national law or practice. In addition, paragraph 36 of the recommendation provides that appropriate provisions should, as far as practicable, also be applied to occasional and to seasonal dock workers in accordance with national law and practice.
The truth is that there is absolutely nothing in that convention or the recommendation to require us to pass the legislation affecting small ports. Any suggestion to the contrary is a red herring drawn across the trail to disguise the inadequacy and unnecessary nature of this legislation for the small ports.
It is then said in defence of the extension of the scheme that we do not have to worry very much because the Bill will not be extended to all the small ports. It does not have to be, it is said. Representations, we are told, can be made, and if the small ports can persuade the Secre-

tary of State they will not have the scheme extended to them. One asks why they must have this uncertainty hanging over them in the first place. Why should they have to wait and see whether they can persuade an unseen Secretary of State by representation that the scheme should not be extended to them?
On Second Reading, the Government sought to give assurances that were no doubt designed to allay fears. We were told by the then Secretary of State that it did not mean that the scheme would automatically be extended to all small docks irrespective of the amount of trade or the regularity of traffic. We were told that very small docks, where satisfactory arrangements could not be devised to sustain the permanent labour force, however small, would not be brought within the scheme. Those were the honeyed words of the Secretary of State. Similar words were spoken by the present Secretary of State in winding up the debate.
One is bound to be suspicious because of the extremely narrow terms in which that assurance was given—that only the very smallest ports where there could be no permanent labour force would be brought within the scheme. It is significant that, when the Government seek to give assurances to the House, there is something which, unless we read the small print—and my God, we know that we have to do that—sounds as if it means something.
When the Secretary of State wrote to Captain Joyner, the Chairman of the Small Ports Consultative Committee, he was rather more candid. He said:
It would be misleading if I did not make it clear that the Government remains firmly of the opinion expressed in para. 23 of the Consultative Document 'Dockworks', that the scheme should apply wherever significant third-party loading and unloading operations are carried out. I recognise that the introduction of the scheme could cause problems, for some non-scheme ports. On an overall view, however, we believe it could give rise to major difficulties both now and in the future, if the scheme were not extended to substantially all third-party loading and unloading.
Can the right hon. Gentleman be surprised if, with that letter, we are not satisfied with the assurances given to the House? When we take into account the further fact that no Government amendments dealing with this point have been


put forward, our anxieties are redoubled. This is the reason why we are putting forward the new clause.
New Clause 4 would prevent the extension of the scheme to small ports, and New Clause 3 would limit it to places within five miles of existing large harbours. The definition of a small port has been drafted by reference to the size of vessel which the port is able to handle at mean high water—namely, 1,000 tons.
As some of the small ports in Scotland are deep-water ports, we have also produced an alternative criterion dependent on the average number of hours worked, so that there would be an exclusion where the average was less than 1,350, which amounts to 65 per cent. of the total hours of employment of individual workers. The purpose is to exclude the small ports which are least able to sustain a permanent system of employment.
If the Secretary of State finds defects in the clause, we shall listen with interest to any alternative he chooses to put forward. This combination of criteria would have the effect of removing small ports such as Stornaway, Montrose, Colchester, Exmouth and Whitby from the operation of the scheme. There are also amendments and new clauses which would have the effect of removing altogether from the Bill one of its most iniquitous powers. It is bad enough to have an utterly indefensible five-mile zone around our coast which extends, because of the way it is defined, into the heart of Yorkshire and all sorts of places which do not remotely consider themselves to be anywhere near dockland.
To add insult to injury, under Clause 4(6) the Secretary of State may by Order extend the cargo-handling zone either by substituting for the five-mile distances a greater distance or by directing that some specified additional area of Great Britain should be treated as part of the zone. The Secretary of State can pluck out of the air any place as far from the sea as he chooses and say "That is part of the cargo-handling zone." Warwick or Nottingham or anywhere else can be introduced in this way.
One of the amendments which we are supporting would remove that iniquitous power from an already iniquitous Bill. The five-mile zone is wholly arbitrary and wholly indefensible. A vivid illus-

tration of its extraordinary character is provided by the fact that the cold storage depots about which we are especially concerned are affected in this ridiculous way. Some 69 per cent. of cold storage depots are within the zone and 31 per cent. are outside it. What possible basis can there be for introducing a kind of unfair competition between one cold storage plant and another in that way?

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point will be remind the House that the Order to which he has been referring comes under the negative resolution procedure? Therefore, it will not be debated in the normal course of events unless the Government give time, and the House cannot amend one word of it.

Mr. Brittan: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I am rather concerned about New Clauses 3 and 4. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether we shall be voting on New Clause 4 first? I should prefer that we were voting on an amendment to provide for a half-mile zone. I think that five miles is too much. If that were applied to small ports, it would cover the whole of the Isle of Wight.

Mr. Brittan: The key clause is New Clause 4, which we shall seek to vote upon if the Chair is agreeable.
Leaving aside the question of the small ports and the iniquitous provisions of Clause 4(6), the extension of the scheme will do not good anywhere in the country. That is why we opposed the Bill from the beginning. It will do a great deal of harm in many places, and it will do most harm to the small ports. Many of those are in areas which are already suffering from rural unemployment and associated problems. To threaten their very existence by the extension of the scheme in this way has nothing to do with Socialism as I understand that term. I do not see how rural unemployment has anything to do with Socialism. It has nothing to do with trade unionism and certainly it has nothing to do with modernisation. It is sheer, unadulterated, misguided folly.

Sir David Renton: I agree with the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and


Whitby (Mr. Brittan) with such force and conviction.
The biggest cold store in Europe is in my large and mainly rural constituency. It is just outside the cargo-handling zone as defined in such an extraordinary way in the Bill. The district organiser and the shop stewards of the union principally concerned in that cold store asked to see me because they had read the Bill and realised that the cargo-handling zone could be extended in the way that my hon. Friend has mentioned, merely by ministerial Order subject to the negative resolution procedure.

Mr. Harold Walker: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's hon. Friends the Members for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) and Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) will not correct him, may I point out that the Order is subject to the affirmative procedure as provided in Clause 4(7).

7.30 p.m.

Sir D. Renton: I am obliged for the correction. However, that does not to any extent diminish my argument.
In an exchange with the Secretary of State this afternoon on the question of the parliamentary procedures for handling Orders subject to affirmative resolution, it became abundantly clear that these Orders would not be discussed in the daytime in major debate on the Floor of the House. The best that we could hope for—I am grateful to the Minister for reminding me of the procedure—was that a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments would discuss the merits and that the matter would be brought to the House at some time for voting.

Mr. Booth: I hope that I have misunderstood what the right hon. and learned Gentleman was saying. I should make it absolutely clear to the House that I did not say that the affirmative procedure on Orders would not be discussed in the normal way. I said that it could be proposed that they should go to a Merits Committee, but my attention was drawn to the fact that on the affirmative resolution procedure that was not necessarily so. Therefore, I readily agreed that, where the Government proposed such a procedure, it was within the control of 20

Members to ensure that any affirmative Orders were debated in the Chamber.

Sir D. Renton: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should apply his mind not to the details of our procedure, which we hope will be improved with regard to these matters, but to the genuine fears of workers who consider that their jobs should not be taken over by dockers or dockers' sons by the making of an extension Order extending indefinitely, if necessary, the cargo-handling zone.
The cold store to which I referred, which is most efficient as well as being the largest in Europe, has a happy,wellpaid work force, and the management is on excellent terms with that work force. The workers concerned contacted not only me but the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward). I think that, although the hon. Member is a political opponent, he and I respect each other when handling constituency interests. However, I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman, when the Bill was still in Committee, should claim that the firm in question was outside the cargo-handling zone and that it was "a mischevious distortion" to suggest that dockers could somehow walk into local jobs.
Therefore, I thought that I should get the matter cleared up by correspondence with the Ministers concerned, Accordingly, I wrote and asked what would be the position of this cold store in the context of the cargo-handling zone. The letter that I received from the Minister of State confirmed my worst fears. If the House will bear with me, I should like to read a brief extract from it. The letter is dated 1st July. The Minister thanks me for my letter about the position of the cold store.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That was good of him.

Sir D. Renton: Yes. He then said:
There is a power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to extend the five-mile cargo handling zone by Order. Any such Order would, however, be subject to approval in draft by both Houses of Parliament. This is conceived as being very much a reserve power. There is certainly no present intention to make early use of it.
Therefore, I do not consider that the hon. Member for Peterborough should accuse us of scaremongering when we say that there is a potential threat to the jobs of the people employed at that cold store.
more especially as the letter goes on to say:
'I obviously cannot guarantee that it would never be used in such a way as would bring the Christian Salvesen store at Peterborough within the zone, but I think you can take it that this is very unlikely.
I am concerned not with what Ministers write in their letters, or even with the assurances they give on the Floor of the House, but with the laws that they are asking Parliament to make.
For many years now—today is the thrity-first anniversary of my return to Parliament—I have considered that the natural and logical outcome of there being a Socialist State would be the direction of labour in one form or another. As far as I know, this is the first Bill that has been put before Parliament which in peace time potentially involves the compulsion of labour. It is being done, against the law of supply and demand, to create favourable conditions for a particular privileged class of workers and their sons. I do not think that is right in any event, especially when there is the potential threat to people who are already doing satisfactory work.
I should make it clear that the trade union representatives who came to see me asked me to fight the Bill tooth and nail. I did not speak on Second Reading, I was not a member of the Committee, and I did not see those people until after the Committee stage had started. However, they made it clear that they objected to the Bill most strongly. Indeed, they used language about the threat to their jobs which it would be wrong for me to repeat in your presence, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My constituents are generous people. In the last 20 yeatrs they have welcomed about 30,000 people from London under town development schemes. Very few constituencies can make such as claim as that. They have welcomed these strangers, some of whom had been dockers, although not doing dock work. They had gone away from London and taken jobs on the industrial estates at Huntingdon and elsewhere in my constituency. But when it comes to people being forced upon them to take up work not provided for them because they are coming voluntarily under town development schemes, my constituents naturally have a very different attitude towards the matter.
The definition of the cargo-handling zone in the Bill is not only much too wide and can be extended by Order, but in its application to my constituency it is quite ludicrous. For example, the small market town of St. Ives is 40 miles from the coast, 40 miles from the port of King's Lynn and 30 miles from the inland port of Wisbech, but it is within the cargo-handling zone because the New Bedford river is tidal as far as Earith Sluice, which is on the boundary between my constituency and the Isle of Ely, and St. Ives is less than five miles from Earith Sluice. St. Ives has an industrial estate on which food processing is going on satisfactorily.
This seemed such an oppressive and ridiculous situation that I asked the Secretary of State to give me the reason and justification for it. The only reply that he was able to give was that the only definition that they could come up with unfortunately led to a somewhat anomalous situation in my constituency. That is not good enough.
There is one St. Ives on sea in Cornwall, but the idea of "St. Ives on sea" in Huntingdonshire is ridiculous. Technically, that is what it will become because of the definition of "the sea" in Clause 4(4).
We have done our best to help the Government by tabling various amendments which would drive some sense into the Bill, limit these excessively wide definitions and stop the law from becoming an ass. I should have thought that, in particular, the Government ought to accept Amendment No. 21 which seeks to limit the corridor from within five miles to within half a mile of scheme ports and harbours.
Because of the absurd anomaly which has been created, I draw attention to Amendments Nos. 281 and 282, which would leave out the whole of the Huntingdon district, which is really a vast rural area with some small towns, and the district and city of Peterborough. part of which is represented here by the hon. Member for Peterborough and part by myself.
The Bill is so far-reaching that the Government should heed what we are saying. This unprecedented measure involves compulsion and is unpopular among trade unions. It will add to the


costs of handling food grown in my constituency. If the Government persist with the Bill, they will get themselves into terrible trouble.
The last witch to be burned in England was burned at Warboys in my constituency. That conflagration will be nothing compared with the conflagration of all the paper which will have to be circulated if the Bill is implemented, let alone extended. I implore the Secretary of State, in his own and the country's interests, to think again.

Mr. Loyden: I do not want to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) too far, but I must comment on some of the points made by Opposition Members. The clause deals with the cargo-handling zone, and the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Britton) referred to that exclusively in his speech. To listen to hon. Members opposite, one would imagine that the five-mile zone is the only criterion in the definition of dock work. That is entirely untrue.
The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire said that the cold store to which he referred came within the five-mile zone and would be subject to takeover by registered dock workers. There is no uniformity in registered dock work behaviour towards cold stores, warehousing and other work, but let me give the right hon. and learned Gentleman an example to contradict his argument.
In the port of Liverpool, there is a cold store in the middle of the docks where work has not been carried out by registered dock workers. I have discussed with members of my union their attitude to that cold store in future and it is clear that, where work has traditionally been done by another group of workers, it is not desired that it should become registered dock work. That is the attitude of my union's members to a cold store which is not just in the centre of dockland but in the centre of the docks themselves.
Location will not be the only factor which determines whether premises should be subject to classification. Other tests will have to be applied.
7.45 p.m.
Some employers have established themselves in the docks industry in London and have employed generations of registered dock workers. One firm in the cold storage industry decided to end this association and, in negotiations with the Transport and General Workers' Union, said that there was no question of its re-establishing a business in a different area.
Later, a new cold store appeared outside dockland and Questions were asked in the House about whether it was being operated by the firm which had been established in dockland and had employed registered dock workers. The then Prime Minister said that it was a small firm which had nothing to do with the large combines operating in the cold storage industry. It was then disclosed that this small firm was in fact Vestey's. In a deliberate act of policy the firm moved it work out of the docks, despite having agreed with the unions and workers to retain that work there and not to re-establish any work outside the docks.
This is why dock workers are rather cynical about employers who say that they have no intention of moving work from the docks. The establishment of the NDLB brought the first state of order into the industry and removed the criminal activity of casualisation. The Opposition have at least come clean on that point by admitting that there is the possibility of far more exploitation and greater use of casual labour in small ports. The Opposition then argue that these ports should be protected so that they can continue to employ casual labour with all its consequences.
A new element was revealed in the speech of the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby. Dockers have been blamed for virtually every sin ever committed, but the hon. Member apparently now holds them responsible for rough weather. He suggested that delays which occurred because of rough weather had something to do with dockers from Tyneside and Teesside flooding Whitby to load oysters into container ships in the harbour. This is the sort of exaggerated nonsense we have had throughout the proceedings on the Bill. The Government's proposal for a five-mile zone is common sense. If


there is to be an examination of an area, that area has to be laid out. There is no magic in the figure of five miles any more than there is in two miles or half a mile.
The point is that the question whether premises will be included will not rest solely on their location. We could draw the zone as wide as the United Kingdom, and it would not make any difference because that will not be the basis on which Orders to extend the scheme are made. There will be other tests, including how the work has been done previously, what has been the traditional method and whether an agreement was established before 1967 to ensure that there is no question of a takeover by dock workers.
We are bringing up to date the regulations and a system of working which has been operating satisfactorily in this country. It is now time to review it, and that is exactly what the Bill does.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would remind hon. Members that the guillotine on consideration of the Bill falls at 10 o'clock. I have never seen such a list of hon. Members anxious to take part in the debate. I have made a rough calculation—I hope that hon. Members will not use the language that the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) said that he would not repeat—and I suggest that five-minute speeches might allow all hon. Members to take part.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The port of Teignmouth in my constituency—as is the case with ports which other hon. Members will want to describe—is a tidal port and is vital to the employment of a large number of people in the clay industry. The industry is meeting new competition from Brazil such as has never been experienced before. Were this port to founder by being made uneconomic, it is not just the livelihood of fewer than two dozen people in the dock that would be affected but the livelihood of several thousand people in the ball clay industry, which ships through it.
One factor that keeps down the cost in that port is that third party merchandise is handled there—particularly timber, and fertiliser, grain and other substances. That helps to make it more viable for the clay industry. That is no

reason why it should fall within the scope of the Bill and be extinguished.
The road system in that part of Britain is very poor, the ground is hilly and the roads are serpentine and narrow. I see nothing about that in the Bill. We need that port not just for the clay industry but to save large loads of timber and similar merchandise having to be transported along roads quite inadequate for them.
I have received a letter from the organisation representing trade unions, not just in Torbay in the formal sense but including Teignmouth and Dawlish in my constituency. They are worried about unemployment, particularly unemployment of young people in that area. I am arranging to see them urgently, but the problem that we shall all have on our plate if this tidal port is made uneconomic is one with which neither they nor any Government are likely to be able to cope.
The Secretary of State visited that port recently. He did not have the courtesy to inform its Member of Parliament that he was doing so. When I wrote to his private office, it said that it thought that it was in Torquay or Newton Abbot or Totnes, so incompetent is it. I hope that at least the right hon. Gentleman will admit that this is the sort of thing that should be dealt with by statutory exclusion, as Amendment No. 55 proposes.
If the Minister makes an Order to bring in a port, that Order cannot be amended by the House. It may not even be debated. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) said, it may be considered in the Statutory Instruments Committee by only 20 hon. Members, to the exclusion of over 600. Let us never put up with a Minister who says in effect "The Bill may be a legislative nonsense but after all you can depend on the delegated legislation procedure to make it work." We all know that we cannot depend on that. We must get the Bill right in the first place, so far as a non-sense like this can ever be got right.
There is much more that I should like to say, but I shall not because of your appeal, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for speches of not more than five minutes.

Mr. J. Grimond: Had this Bill not been printed,


no one would have thought that it was conceivable that it should ever appear. I hope that the Government will take some notice of what has been said about Clause 4 (6), which, apart from its practical disadvantages, is surely constitutionally quite unacceptable. Whether it is done by one procedure or another, it is almost unbelievable that it should be suggested that this House should take it upon itself to designate any part of the country as a cargo-handling zone. I have been told in correspondence that Ministers will not do these silly things. But could there be a sillier thing than introducing the Bill in the first place? What confidence can one have in Ministers who have done that?
I want to draw attenton to the effect of the Bill on the islands of Scotland. The greatest handicap of all the islands around Britain, and particularly around Scotland, are freight and transport charges. We have tried for years to decrease them. The Government are paying millions of pounds in subsidies to MacBrayne's to try to make transport reasonably cheap on the West Coast of Scotland. If the Bill does anything, it can only increase the cost of freight and transport around the coast of Scotland.
At present, the Bill could apply to every pier and jetty. The Government have said that they will not do that, but what guarantee have we? If they are not going to do it, why not exclude the islands? Boats have to be loaded and unloaded on islands. How could it be otherwise? They are unloaded by trade union labour, although not necessarily dock labour, and by crofters, fishermen and part-timers.
This Bill is a direct blow at crofters and fishermen. This is not a Bill about Socialism. It is designed to penalise not the rich and idle but the poor and hard-working. It will make every cost larger if it does anything at all. If it does nothing, it is simply a piece of bureaucratic nonsense, and dangerous too. It will hang over our heads and there is no telling when it might be introduced—with disastrous results.
We have dockers in Lerwick and Kirkwall. They work hard and they are well paid. If anyone thinks that Lerwick dockers need the protection of this Bill,

let him speak to Jack Jones. He will tell him that Lerwick dockers are perfectly able to look after themselves, and do so, and that the Bill is wholly unnecessary.
I must therefore make a powerful plea that, whatever happens to the Bill, we must be clear that any attempt to apply it to the islands of Scotland would be detrimental, reactionary and a serious blow at the effective part of our economy.

Mr. Prescott: I will bear in mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what you have said about five-minute speeches, but there have been very few from this side and after I was refused the opportunity to intervene at the beginning, I should like to answer some of the points made by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) from the Opposition Front Bench, who addressed most of his argument to the case for exempting the small wharves and reducing the size of the corridor.
Many hon. Members have talked as though the Bill were not a radical Bill. In the sense that it seeks to extend proper working wages and conditions to the workers in these areas, it is an advance in labour legislation. It is certainly wanted in my area and even in some of the non-scheme ports. Whatever the controversy about the ownership of the port of Felixstowe, the dockers there have made it clear that they want to enter into this scheme.
8 p.m.
The debate has shown a considerable lack of understanding about the industry and its problems. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby referred to Whitby, and that port illustrates the point I want to make, because in one way it is within the Humberside complex. The report of the National Ports Council and other reports on traffic in the area show that there has been competition between the ports from Whitby down to Felixstowe with alternative ports in the Humberside estuary. Most traffic comes to our estuarial areas, and Humberside has an important part to play in the argument about Whitby. Most of the arguments I shall put are reproduced in the National Ports Council report. I am not quoting dogma. I am quoting from the tremendous amount of factual data in the report.
I want to address my remarks particularly to small non-scheme wharves, not to the main five ports mentioned in the report. The report shows that the major concentration of small non-scheme ports is in the Humberside area. I am speaking about non-scheme, third-party ports and not about single users—for instance, the man who for 50 years has been importing his own grain or flour. Even the proposal to nationalise the docks did not include single users. I am talking about the developing third-party, commercial, non-scheme ports on the estuary.
To put the problem into perspective, 85 per cent. of port traffic goes via the scheme ports. Of 32,000 registered dock workers, only 1,000 work in non-scheme ports. That represents only a small proportion of the labour force. We are trying to establish for those 1,000 workers decent wages and conditions. If there is any doubt about wages and conditions of work, hon. Members should read the National Ports Council report, which clearly shows that many workers were receiving about £45 for a 60-hour week.
Hon. Members should not take my word for it: it is in the report. As a token of justice, the Government have agreed to give to workers in this fast growing sector of the port industry a guarantee of good wages and working conditions, and I should have thought that we would all be at one in agreeing that.
I want to address my attention to the consequences of the growth of the small wharves in the context of port development. The decision we have to make is about the allocation of resources, the future of our ports and whether the philosophy is that all ports should compete as if they were equal. That is the philosophy of the Conservatives, which was embodied in their financial policy report for the ports in 1971. It is now recognised that that was a disastrous policy which had considerable consequences on the development of small wharves.
The development of small wharves has increased for two reasons. The first is that the customs licensing was taken from London in 1965 and given to local areas. The second is the development of

the system of trans-shipment from large ships to small ships, which had certain economic consequences. Traffic which is diverted into small ships find it more convenient to come to the smaller wharves. There has been a growth in grain, timber and oil cargoes, so much so that two million tons of traffic has bypassed the port of Hull, with a consequent loss of income to Hull of £1,250,000 in 1972.
Why has that traffic gone? It could be said that it is because of industrial disputes, but sometimes we have to have industrial disputes to achieve certain objectives. An industrial dispute is the only kind of strength that is recognised. I want to answer the question in economic terms.
I have spent a considerable time examining the economic costs. The two parts of this industry are not equal. Hull is a major port and, like all other major ports, invested in roll-on/roll-off container developments. It is not a specialist port such as Southampton, which specialises in passengers and oil and can thus achieve economies of operations. Massive investment is needed in the major ports. Hull has had investments of £36 million since 1946 and £16 million since 1964.
Nationalised industries are required to make a profit and to give a return on investment. In 1971 the Conservative Government said that they expected ports to be self-supporting and competitive. They went on to lay down that there must be a return on investment. If a port is losing traffic, it will not get a return on investment, and its only alternative is to increase charges.
In the early 1970s, in a period of six months Hull increased its charges by 50 per cent. What happened? It lost more traffic to the wharves. It might be said that that is more efficient, but when millions are invested that investment has to be reflected in charges if there is to be a return. The Hull charges for grain and timber were twice as high as were those in the wharves. Traffic was coming for Hull, going down to the wharves 60 miles away and being brought back by lorry to Hull. That is crazy. People living in the rural areas complained about the lorries and local authorities complained about the damage done to the roads.
I give an example of one small wharf on the Ouse. The wharf cost £70,000 to build. The Selby local authority gave £4,000 because it could see the rates potential. The river authority saw the chance of having its river banks built up and gave £20,000. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave a grant for building the wharf. Nearly £30,000 was raised towards that capital investment. It is not possible for the wharf to make charges that reflect that capital investment. It is not economic sense to attempt to compete on those grounds.
By the Bill the Government are seeking to ensure that workers in the small ports get the same pay as other port works—a fair rate for the job, which is a trade union principle. But that does not solve the economic problem. We shall still have the problem of traffic being diverted and we have to decide how to establish a rational ports policy. Our nationalisation proposals go some way towards that. The Bill is part of the rational approach to economic and social problems.
BACAT reflects the same sort of problem. That only seeks by another technological development to divert more traffic down the river away from the port of Hull, with consequences for shipbuilding yards and transport firms. The argument is not so simple as has been suggested. It is not just a question of efficiency and competitiveness. I welcome the Bill as one move towards getting a rational ports policy, quite apart from Socialism.
It should be put on the record when discussing whether to reduce the area of dock work coverage to five miles, as suggested, that the dockers in my area point to what has happened since the introduction of the Labour Government's scheme in 1947. It has been argued that workers in this country are not subject to direction of labour. However, since 1946 seamen have been directed to jobs and a number of other classes of worker have been subject to this direction. For many years dockers have been sent from one port or area to another. Those who argue to the contrary reveal a lack of knowledge.
There have been several reports on the Dock Labour Scheme. There have been joint industrial reports, there was the

Rochdale Report and then there was the Devlin Report, all recommending an end of the system and an extension of the area. The last report—in 1969—was the Bristow Report, which advocated 10 miles for London. The principle was that where dock work had gone from the dock side, the area should be extended to 10 miles.
The Government chose not to follow that recommendation, even for London. If the Government had implemented the Bristow Report, they might have avoided many of the problems that they encountered in 1972. All those who have inquired into this matter have recommended that we should take this action.
I welcome the action that the Government propose and I am very glad that, a guillotine has been introduced on the Bill. I see this as only the first step to the proper nationalisation of the industry.

Mr. R. Bonner Pink: I rise to support the large number of amendments designed to exclude the smaller ports. There should be two more amendments seeking to exclude the commercial port of Portsmouth. Those amendments were tabled last week but do not appear on the Notice Paper. However, my remarks apply in general to many of the harbours specified in the amendments. They consist of small harbours which have limited facilities—facilities which limit their activities virtually to small coasters, and in consequence their activities are limited geographically and limited to narrow types of trading.
For example, Portsmouth's trade is confined very largely to imports of fresh fruit and vegetables from the Channel Islands with return traffic of general goods but particularly building materials. Other imports consist of timber and other materials for the local building trade.
But although shipping is very limited, such ports are becoming increasingly important as industrial areas. Some firms, such as IBM at Portsmouth, have worldwide interests but considerable business in the United Kingdom. Firms such as this want to be free to employ whom they wish and not to be forced to employ registered dock workers just because their factory happens to be within five miles of a port in which they have no interest and which they never use.
We have a concrete example in Portsmouth where developers have refused to express any interest in a vacant warehouse in the city. The reasons are very plainly set out in a letter from the South-East Hampshire Chamber of Commerce. It quotes the cost of moving grain in Avonmouth at £2·75 a ton compared with 75p at Portsmouth. It quotes the example of Fyffes at Barry. When the firm was forced to employ dockers, its staff increased from seven warehousemen to 14 dockers, costing an additional £1,500 per week. Incidentally, the seven warehousemen lost their jobs.
These are just examples of the bad effects of the Bill. Undoubtedly, if it is brought into force many small ports will be hard hit or even forced to close. It will be increasingly difficult to attract industry into coastal areas affected by it. Moreover, many people will lose jobs that they have done well and conscientiously for many years, and the overall cost to the country may be anywhere between £80 million and £150 million a year. If the Government persist in forcing through the Bill, I hope that at least they will accept these amendments.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. MacCormick: I support the new clause, particularly because of the amendments that my colleagues and I have tabled and that are grouped with the clause. The time factor means that I shall not be ale to deal with nearly as many aspects as I should have liked. I shall deal with only one.
Earlier the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) characterised the Bill as being unnecessary. From the point of view of the people of Scotland, I regard it as not only unnecessary but deeply anachronistic. We are in a period of great constitutional change affecting Scotland, yet here we are faced with the type of Bill that could have come straight from the 1940s—the sort of blanket nationalisation, the unthinking unitary type of nationalisation that used to characterise Socialist Government and that we on the Opposition side thought had disappeared.
Nothing that happened on Second Reading and in Committee, nor indeed anything that happened today, has changed my mind one whit about the

evils of the Bill. I wonder whether the people of Scotland, or, indeed, many hon. Members, are aware of what the Secretary of State said in Committee, namely—
I see the relationship between the Scottish Assembly and the Docks Scheme as being very remote."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G; 19th February 1976, c. 21.]
The Secretary of State may have many qualities: he may be hard-working and he may be a worthy man. However, if he thinks that the people of Scotland will accept such nonsense in these days, he has another think coming.
After all, Scotland above all as a maritime nation is a trading country. It is very difficult to live far from the sea, as the cold storage industry and many other industries there are about to find out if the Bill is enacted. The Secretary of State was totally unconvincing in Committee as to the ways in which any form of democratic control could be exercised over the National Dock Labour Board by the people of Scotland and by Scottish politicians. In Committee the Secretary of State spoke of the Secretary of State for Scotland passing on the views of the Scottish Assembly to the Secretary of State for Employment, but he spoke in the same kind of way as other hon. Members have—namely, by giving airy-fairy assurances rather than by using concrete terms, which are all that would impress my colleagues and me.
Finally, the whole idea that we should accept that all small ports and island ports should be included in the Bill, even though it is not to apply, reminds me of the famous conjurer's trick that we used to see at children's parties when a man started with a large sign saying "Fresh fish sold here daily" and then one by one took each word off saying "You do not need this word" until he ended up with nothing. The same twisted logic applies to the Government's approach to the Bill.
I recommend my hon. Friends in the Scottish National Party to support the new clause in the hope not only that it will be a narrow vote, but that this time it will be a victory for common sense and justice.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: It is extremely important that we do not impose on the small ports and those which may blossom forth from very small beginnings the dead


hand of the past. It is very important that tiny places such as Lancaster and Glasson Dock should have the potentiality and the chance that places like Felixstowe have seized upon so successfully.
Mine is an area of very high unemployment. We have few opportunities. We are right at the top of the north of England. We have a tidal river and the port would be included within the scheme. I believe that as time passes and we establish a greater industrial base, we could develop a thriving port. It would be wrong for the Bill in any way to impede the progress that we might make.
We have very few male industrial vacancies at present. We want to hang on to the employment that we have. We do not want the dockers of Merseyside marching up to Lancaster. They take far too much from us as it is. We want to keep our independence and keep open the opportunity of establishing better facilities and a thriving community. We do not want these dock labour people marching in and taking jobs from us and preventing us from establishing ourselves should the opportunity occur. We want to hang on to what we have and to develop a better life for our own workers.
For these reasons, I ask the House to support Amendment No. 71 to exclude Lancaster and Glasson Dock from the scheme.

Mr. Richard Luce: The more I hear of the nervous laughter from the Government side of the House, the more it confirms my belief that their principle is that muscle is what pays and that the big fry should swallow the small fry.
I wish to speak briefly to Amendment No. 83, which appears in my name and the names of others of my hon. Friends including my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). Part of the port of Shoreham is in my hon. Friend's constituency. It is one of the largest none-scheme ports in the country. It is extremely accessible to the South-East and to the European Community. It has an extremely high reputation, thanks in large measure to the dockers at the port. It is efficient, reliable and flexible in its service, and it has had good industrial rela-

tions. It has a good rate of productivity and its charges are competitive.
Taking the record of the port over the last decade or so, we find that its trade has expanded substantially and it has imported far more goods than in the 1960s, largely wine and timber. Overall, the non-scheme ports in this country in 1960 handled 4·9 per cent. of all timber and by 1974 they were handling 17·7 per cent. The port of Shoreham, which, as I have said, is a non-scheme port, was handling 1·3 per cent. of all the timber trade in 1960 and by 1974 it was handling 5·6 per cent.
We are entitled to ask why the port of Shoreham has been so successful over the past 15 years. There are many reasons, one of which is that the dockers have contributed enormously to the efficiency of the port. The second reason, and one that I believe is the most significant, is the fact that it is a non-scheme port, and this has led to its outstanding success in the last decade or so.
The sword of Damocles is hanging over the port of Shoreham, because the scheme is bound to hamper the efficiency of the port and damage the trade of this country. The product of the Bill, which one might almost describe as a mad hatter's tea party, will be catastrophic in its consequences in the long term and will do a disservice to the dockers not only in Shoreham but in other ports. Not one docker has told me that he wants the Bill introduced. I have been round the port of Shoreham talking to the dockers and giving them a chance to express their views. Labour Members, who think that they have a monopoly of interest in and knowledge of dockers and their problems, display an absolute arrogance. They have no right whatsoever to speak for the dockers of Shoreham.

Mr. Loyden: Ask the dockers of Shoreham.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I deprecate sedentary interventions.

Mr. Luce: The Bill will give to a group of people privileges unsurpassed in any walk of life—guaranteed jobs for life and guaranteed minimum earnings, whether or not one has a job. In the past, people have acquired privileges by power, but here we are actually granting


by law privileges in excess of privileges which any other group in the community ever had.
Anyone who is concerned about people will wish to ensure that the employees in this industry who are affected by containerisation and so on are looked after. We must make sure that we do as much as possible to find them alternative jobs. As in other industries which are being run down, such as the motor vehicle and steel industries, railways and farming, the dockers are entitled to sympathetic treatment. They should be retrained and the industry should be run down in an orderly fashion.

Mr. Loyden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Luce: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He has spoken more than enough.
It will be catastrophic to apply the Bill to the port of Shoreham. It will strain industrial relations between dockers, lorry drivers, warehousemen, tally clerks and administrators. It will give an extra monopoly position to those people at a time when we ought to be dispersing power. The Bill will introduce strain into a port such as that at Shoreham which has a fine record of industrial relations. It will interpose a third party in the National Dock Labour Board, which will make relationships between the four main employers and dockers far more impersonal and more difficult to handle. It will exacerbate and increase operating costs. It will ossify the manning system and will increase restrictive practices and the inflexible use of labour. It will impose extra burdens through the levy system and administrative costs. It will stifle competition.
At Shoreham we have a port whose reputation for reliability and flexibility will be stifled, and it will suffer very badly as a result of the Bill. The Government are insulting not only this House but the country. They are insulting the dockers of the country, including those at Shoreham, by saying that they can survive only through privileged manning treatment. That is not what the dockers of Shoreham want. They want to be treated on an equal basis

with everyone else. For that reason I strongly support the amendment.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: This Bill is making a deep incision into the rural hinterland and into my constituency, as far as Newark, including the wharves at Keadby. It was only when the timetable motion was tabled last week that I appreciated that the Government really meant to go ahead with the Bill. I believe that it is a Bill which should have been quietly allowed to run out of time. Once the Government's intention was clear, however, I immediately tabled an amendment to exclude the wharves at Keadby from the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate whether he can accept Amendment No. 135 and exclude Keadby from the Bill.
Keadby is famous for the part that it played in beating the 1972 dock strike. Hon. Members will be familiar with the scenes there on 15th August 1972 when flying pickets from Hull injured three policemen and eventually had to be driven off by a counter-demonstration of housewives. It is no wonder that Keadby gets under the skins of Mr. Jack Jones and hon. Members opposite.
It has taken four years to settle the score at the 1972 dock strike by means of the Bill. The Minister will appreciate that Keadby is the port furthest up the Trent before the first bridge. The moorings at Keadby are uniquely placed for the development of the motorway system in that area. In an area of high unemployment such as exists in North Lincolnshire, further development at Keadby and its expansion is vitally important to the people in my constituency. I wonder whether that in vestment will be forthcoming if the dockers get a stranglehold on this enterprising and courageous port.
There is a major development of the port of Gainsborough which survives on a delicate relationship between the lightermen and the dock labour men in Hull. There are 85 lightermen who work the barges, and although they have asked me not to press Amendment No. 134 it is right to mention the threat that the Bill represents to other employees in the port of Gainborough. The people who at present use the river may not be too


worried about the Bill, but what about the maltings and feed mills in Gains-borough? In Gainsborough we are fortunate to have two major schemes for the expansion of two of the feed mills.
Gainsborough is a good distribution point. It is easily accessible to the barges from Hull and it has a great tradition of malting and milling. There are good relationships between workers and management. The danger is that the Bill could put a stranglehold on the nation's food supplies, particularly at Gains-borough. I hope that the Minister will indicate that he is prepared to accept Amendment No. 135.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I did not intend to speak in the debate until I listened to some of the tripe from Opposition Members. I listened, for example, to the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce), who spoke about the dockers of Shoreham. He gave the impression that those dockers are not in favour of being included in and others working in non-scheme ports the scheme. In fact, the dockers in all the non-scheme ports throughout the country have clearly stated that they are in favour of the Bill and in favour of being included. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can shout as much as they like, but when the hon. Member for Shoreham really represents the dockers in this House I shall listen to him.

Mr. Luce: rose—

Mr. Heffer: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman did not give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr Loyden), who knows far more about the docks—because he has worked in them—than the hon. Member will ever know.

Mr. Luce: rose—

Mr. John Mendelson: Hypocrite.

Mr. Heffer: The issue that we are discussing tonight—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Did I hear an hon. Member use the word "hypocrite"?

Mr. John Mendelson: Yes, I did. The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce)

refused to give way to an hon. Member who has spent a lifetime in the industry that we are discussing, and now he asks my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) to give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) to reconsider his position.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. John Mendelson: I respect your chairmanship at all times, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It you ask me to withdraw I shall do so immediately, but my contempt for the hon. Member for Shoreham is not diminished.

Mr. Heffer: There has been a great deal of hypocrisy from the Opposition side of the House, and the more I listen to it the more hypocritical the speeches seem to become. While I am not prepared to name any particular individual as a hypocrite, Opposition Members have been hypocritical because they know full well that wages and conditions in the non-scheme ports are worse than those in the scheme ports. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is what the issue is about and that is what dockers are interested in. There are genuine Conservatives who believe in keeping the wages of workers as low as possible, and the "National Ports Council Survey on Non-Scheme Ports and Wharves" clearly explains that position.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Heffer: I shall not give way.
That is the issue. The hon. Gentleman referred to the levy. It is to ensure that dockers receive a proper pension. Conservative Members shed crocodile tears about workers having proper pensions, but when it comes down to it they do not want them to have proper pensions.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) is not here. I do not think that the dockers of Merseyside are likely to be marching to Lancaster. Apart from anything else, if they met the hon. Lady on the road it would be enough to frighten them. One look at the hon. Lady, and they would turn round and march back to Merseyside. [Interruption.] That was a joke.


[Interruption.] If Conservative Members do not want to accept it as a joke, it is not a joke and I shall say it bluntly. The dockers would not want to meet the hon. Lady on the road, and neither would I.

Mr. Peter Rees: As the hon. Gentleman has now said that that was not a joke, he is casting most unchivalrous aspersions at my hon. Friend. He should be asked to withdraw them, Mr. Deputy Speaker

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must take responsibility for whatever he says.

Mr. Heffer: I accept responsibility for what I said, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House can decide what I meant. The hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) is one of the most pompous little men in the House, both mentally and physically.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have now had some moments devoted to personal observations. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now get on with the debate.

Mr. Heffer: I should love to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but for the stupid interruptions of hon. Members such as the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. John Mendelson: The Opposition do not like being caught out in their humbug.

Mr. Heffer: The issue in New Clause 4 is clear. It has been explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who has told us that the growth of some of the small ports and wharves is due to the fact that the conditions of work, wages and so on are that much worse than they are in the scheme ports. All that the Government are doing is to say that there must be proper wages and conditions, with uniformity throughout the country.

Mr. Loyden: Does my hon. Friend realise that in some ports men have got up at 4 o'clock in the morning to milk the cows, have gone to work in the docks at 7 o'clock and at night have worked the projector in the local cinema? That sort of practice is encouraged by Conservative Members.

Mr. Heffer: Once such men obtain proper wages and conditions, they should settle for one job instead of three. I think that genuine dockers in such ports want proper wages and conditions. Whatever the Opposition say, the Bill is well supported by those who work in the industry at the dock work level.

Mr. Tim Sainsbury: If we ignore the personal abuse indulged in by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) in his characteristically blinkered address, what he said did, I suppose, show genuine concern for the wages, conditions and pensions of dock workers, but what he and his hon. Friends totally fail to realise is that there will not be any work for dock workers unless British industry can be efficient. It cannot be helped to be efficient by having a monstrously inefficient method of dock labour regulation imposed upon all our harbours.
Does the hon. Member for Walton want to see every port like the Port of London, with 1,500 people being paid to do nothing? Is that the way in which to improve the productivity of British industry and enable us to pay better pensions not only to dock workers but to everybody else?
If the hon. Member were to think a little wider than the purely selfish interests of those who are now registered dockers, he would realise that there is a wider issue in New Clause 4, and anybody who has listened to the contributions from this side of the House, particularly that of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce), must realise the threat that the Bill poses not only to the efficiency of British industry but to the consumer, because the extension of this measure to all the small harbours, and potentially to cold stores, will be damaging to the consumer.
I have in my constituency a cold store dealing directly in goods intended for the consumer—largely frozen poultry and meat. It is virtually the only public cold store between Southampton and Dover. That store, like to many others, is staffed by workers not one of whom wishes to see the Bill introduce a potential threat to his job. It is no good the Secretary of State saying that there is no early intention to give a direction. By this Bill he is being given the power to make a direction, and that is not a power which those who work


in the cold store and other industries threatened by the Bill wish to see given to any Secretary of State.
In Shoreham harbour, not a small one —a smaller harbour perhaps, but a rather prosperous and efficient one and an expanding port providing a good service to industry, particularly in Sussex—one finds no support for this proposed legislation. It is for that reason that I particularly draw the attention of the Secretary of State to Amendment No. 83.
No rational argument has been advanced in favour of this legislation. It is doctrinaire interference in the working of ports. It will be damaging to the efficiency of British industry and damaging to the consumer. I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise that and withdraw his Bill.

Mr. Leadbitter: I shall be brief because I have noticed that a number of hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. For that reason I shall respect the time about which they are worried as the clock moves on.
The point that my hon. Friends are trying to get over is that the National Ports Council, which was set up by the Conservative Administration, produced certain recommendations in 1973. It stated specifically, clearly and without any doubt that it was time for the Department of Employment to bring non-scheme ports into line with the scheme ports.
So that there may be no doubt about the point that I am making, I quote from the council's report:
The Council recommend that the Secretary of State for Employment be invited to consider what steps are open to him to take to eliminate casual engagement in those cases where it is used as a normal source of such cargo handling labour as is required on a relatively constant basis",
and, the council went on to say,
to ensure that for regular employees at non-scheme undertakings handling third-party traffic, the terms and conditions of employment on cargo handling including the basic rate of pay, hours of normal work, overtime rates, holiday entitlement, sick pay and pension arrangements and daily and weekly guarantees of payment should be not less favourable than the standards laid down for the industry",
and as adopted by the scheme ports.
The recommendation went on to state that there should be an upgrading of the

amenities in those ports equivalent to the standards in the scheme ports. It also said that there should be an improvement in safety. In other words, in regard to conditions of work, recreation, training and the provision of amenities for workers, the National Ports Council, set up by a Conservative Government, made a recommendation to the Minister of Transport in 1973. Yet three years later, in 1976, we have all this quibbling about the Bill.
8.45 p.m.
No Bill should come through the House of Commons without a proper scrutniy by both sides. That is perfectly obvious. The objective of the House of Commons is to question the Government at every stage throughout a Bill. I have criticised some aspects of the Bill myself. But criticism must be objective and for the purposes of improving the Bill. This aspect should have the wholehearted support of both sides of the House.
Surely there cannot be anything wrong with good employers admitting that if conditions and standards are constitutionally right in this country for one section of workers, it is totally wrong for another section, doing the same kind of work in different areas of the country, not to have those standards. Opposition Members have shown perhaps an understandable exuberance in attacking the Bill. As I have said, the Bill is by no means perfect. As was made clear earlier, Labour Members had a policy which, to our regret, has not been followed. We wanted the ports to be nationalised in the beginning. Then we could have talked about conditions for the workers right across the board.
Management, too, could then have understood the totality of a United Kingdom port strategy within the larger totality of a transportation strategy—particularly in view of the closer links that we have with Europe and the rest of the world and the speed-up of transport of all kinds. There is an interface required between air, road, rail and sea. That was the great vision.
This Bill has been brought forward, I understand, because of the aching concern among the workers themselves in an industry which has lost many thousands of workers over the past decades and is now down to 32,000. We are


concerned with the 1,000 workers in the non-scheme ports. The 32,000 port workers are enjoying good standards. We hope to negotiate for even better standards, for that must be our ultimate aim. We must always try to care for our workers. But is there any reason why the other 1,000 workers—one thirty-second part of the total force—should not have the same treatment? That should tie our objective.
In their exuberance in attacking the Bill Opposition Members have forgotten about the good and worthy elements in it. There were arguments earlier about the five-mile corridor. There are arguments about the British Transport Docks Board. There are great arguments on both sides about dock workers and those who are not dock workers. But here we are talking about the conditions of men who have been treated in many ways as casual labour.
The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) talked earlier about seasonal work. That is another way of describing casual labour. There are some non-scheme ports with reasonably good conditions, but it is interesting that where conditions improved in the successful non-scheme ports, such as Felixstowe, they came round in the end to the view that they would have a better future by joining the scheme ports. Indeed, the Felixstowe management was not averse to accepting 150p per share to be nationalised under the British Transport Docks Board. We have, therefore, the natural evolvement of port reorganisation and working conditions within the ports. In the case of the one outstanding success in the private sector of the ports industry, namely, Felixstowe, both management and men came round to the idea of nationalisation and entering the scheme ports.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would I be correct in interpreting this speech more as a Third Reading speech than as a Report stage speech?

Mr. Leadbitter: I shall accept the ruling of the Chair if I am told that I am attempting in any way to deviate from the main theme of this debate. Until that happens, I shall continue to discuss the non-scheme ports, which are the subject under discussion.
I appeal to the Opposition not to continue the feeling that they have tried to engender during the past few hours but rather to take this opportunity to show to the workers in those ports, which they may even represent, how well they appreciate the great error of judgment that they will be making if they go back to their constituencies and their small ports believing that they will be thanked by any docker who is not in the scheme for having attempted to keep them out. That would be a grave error of judgment on their part.
I am satisfied that there is no occupation in the country that would accept the Opposition's proposals. Would the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball), who is a landlord, a fisherman and a member of Lloyds, accept conditions of the kind that the Opposition ask dock workers to accept? Would the lawyer from Cleveland, for example, accept different lawyer's fees simply because he happened to live in another part of the United Kingdom? Would he like that differential?
The House had better accept that we are talking about dockers doing dock work, that we have the National Ports Council saying that it represents the whole industry and seeking to provide an investment programme in the whole industry and to follow the objectives of the Conservative Party in the early 1970s. Simply because the Conservatives are now in opposition, they make a grave error of judgment if they attempt to make a mountain out of this one when only 1,000 workers ask for the conditions that 32,000 already enjoy.

Mr. Hector Monro: I shall not take up any part of the irrelevant nonsense to which we have just been subjected. I wish to add my strong support to the effort of my right hon. and hon. Friends to remove from the Bill the small ports and harbours and to avoid their being brought under the control of the Dock Labour Scheme and much more besides. Hence my Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 to remove Dumfries, Glencaple and Annan from the Bill and keep them clear of the tentacles of the scheme. In any event, if dockers were required to unload ships in this area, presumably they would have to come from as far afield as Glasgow or Newcastle.
But there are many Scottish ports which will be covered by the Bill. I mention Montrose, for example. Despite what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, there has been a petition to the House from the dock labour force there against being involved in this Bill in any way, and there is unanimous support from the fish merchants, the timber merchants and the local authorities to keep the port clear of any form of interference. My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has played a leading part in the campaign to save Montrose and many other Scottish ports.
Then we have the port of Perth. We hear that a firm such as Fife Growers will have to spend £250,000 more to ship produce in and out of Perth if the Bill is passed in its present form. It is surprising that there is no amendment tabled by the Scottish National Party to exclude the port of Perth. There is one in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), but not from the SNP.

Mr. MacCormick: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Scottish National Party wishes to exclude all the ports in Scotland?

Mr. Monro: I have made a statement of fact that there is no amendment from the SNP excluding Perth specifically. The ports that I have mentioned in the amendment carry out comparatively little trade. However, as has been pointed out, these and other ports may well develop. At present they take in cargoes of fertiliser and timber and export roofing tiles. Dumfries comes within the five-mile zone, with all the complications that follow.
I appreciate that the Government are taking power only to make a direction. I am against the Government having blanket control of my small ports. I am particularly concerned in view of the unemployment situation. In Scotland as a whole 165,000 people are unemployed. In my constituency the unemployment figure has risen from 1,300 to 2,300 in two years of Socialism. I do not want to see any jobs going to incoming dockers when they could perfectly well be given to my constituents. This is a senseless Bill which will do nothing to

help our tottering economy. I hope that we shall carry the amendment.

Mr. Antony Buck: The position in East Anglia is much as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) has described the situation in Scotland as it affects the small ports. What I resent is the feeling of some Labour Members that they have a monopoly of compassion for the "working man". What I am concerned about is the preservation of the jobs of dockers in my constituency and their welfare. It is the considered opinion of everyone to whom I have spoken about Colchester's small dock that the Bill is liable to bring about the loss of the jobs of the 30 permanent workers and deprive the five to 10 casuals employed there of any prospect of work. In addition, there would be the effects on warehousing and warehousemen.
I want to see these men keep their jobs. Those concerned confirm that the probable effect of the implementation of the Bill, if it were to apply to Colchester, would be to put the dock out of business. That has been reiterated by the district council in Colchester, which I regret to say does not have a Conservative monopoly. I do not say that everyone on the council supports the view that the scheme should be rejected, but that is the view of the council and the substantial majority of those to whom I have spoken. As far as I can see, in its application to the small ports the Bill has no support save for the support given by doctrinaire Socialists.
In Colchester we have a small dock that handles vessels up to 1,000 tons. The annual throughput is about 200,000 tons. The users attribute the success to its overall efficiency, high quality and flexibility. It is the view of the users and of the Colchester Dock Transit Company Limited that the operation of the scheme outlined in the Bill would cost it a great deal of money, thought to be around £60,000 per annum. That would have the likely effect of putting the company out of business. There would also be an effect on the seasonal trade. From time to time a small number of casual dock workers are employed. This would appear to be impossible under the Bill.
I summarise the position with the aid of documents drawn not from one political source but from all sources concerned


for the future of Colchester as a port. It is thought that by putting the docks out of commision the scheme would probably cost about £60,000 a year, that the district council would lose harbour due revenue of about £40,000 a year, and that the loss of rates to Colchester District Council would amount to about £40,000 a year. There would be a loss of export potential for the grain trade and other exports that go through Colchester dock.
9.0 p.m.
I have not met anyone concerned with the Colchester dock who does not believe that the effect of the Bill being applied to Colchester would do anything but be likely to close down the dock. Therefore, when Labour Members talk about the future of the dockers, let me tell them that that is indeed one of the main things I am concerned about. I am concerned about the relatively small but significant number of dockers in my constituency who, in the opinion of almost everyone to whom I have talked about the Bill, will lose their jobs if the specific amendment tabled in my name to exclude Colchester is not agreed.
I end on a general observation. This is yet a further example of the present Government pursuing policies supported by only a minority of a minority. Even within the Labour Party in my constituency, as far as I am able to judge, it is only a minuscule number who would support the application of this scheme to the port of Colchester.
Therefore, here again the present Government, who are themselves a minority, are forcing forward policies which are supported by only a minority in their own ranks. I hope that the House will see sense and that some Labour Members will have the sense to support the amendments, particularly those in my name to exclude Colchester from the provisions of this iniquitous Bill.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I think that I am the first of those from East Kent to be called, and there are a number of us present. I think we all stand with very much the same views. I should like merely to deal with the Thanet provisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) will probably join in with a further word in due course.
New Clause 4 entirely covers our needs. We say that the Bill should not apply to any small harbour or to any place within five miles of a small harbour where the men working for the last period of 12 months engaged in loading cargo into or unloading cargo from ships have been engaged for a working period of less than 1,350 hours.
I want to speak straight to the point of the new clause. Concerning ports, we have Margate, Ramsgate, Broadstairs and Pegwell Bay, and the airport of my hon. Friend, Manston. What I want to say spreads over other ports. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) is present. He has a rather separate case. The Bill is an economic disaster for us for the simple reason that there are so few men employed in the ports who will be covered by the scheme.
With the exception of Ramsgate there is purely casual labour, and very few in number. Ramsgate employs 20 men, with an earnings average of just over £2,000 a year—about £50,000—and those men work an average of 12 hours a week. The average throughout the year comes to less than 750 hours per annum for each man. This is so small as to be negligible and it is not worth bringing it into a scheme. If it was brought into a scheme, in the case of Ramsgate, for example, the port would require an operating minimum of 15 men, which would give a wages bill of £90,000. That would be a 60 Der cent. increase, and 25 per cent. of the labour force would lose their employment.
It would raise the cost by 60 per cent. It would mean that the handling charges would not be worth while, and the business would therefore case. Ramsgate would have to work around the clock, and it is reckoned that the men who did this work, with the overtime which would be necessary with the basis of the 40-hour week, because of the hours that the ships come in, would earn an extra £40 a week—namely, £6,000 per annum.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I am most grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for putting the case so well for our joint constituencies. Does he accept that these costs which he rightly stresses will result not just in the


20 non-scheme dockers being put out of work but in another 200 ancillary jobs around Ramsgate Harbour being put in jeopardy?

Mr. Rees-Davies: My hon. Friend puts it very well. I hope that he will have the opportunity to elaborate on the other aspects which affect Ramsgate.
How did the Bill come about? It is opposed by USDAW, and I am surprised that I have not heard representatives of USDAW in this House speaking out in opposition yet. It is also opposed by a large number of container men. Therefore, one may well ask how it came to see the light of day. I am advised that this is a real East End dockers' Mafia scheme.
The East End has suffered greatly, and I am sorry for that. As a result, however, dockers have taken over sections of the T&GWU and foisted this measure on the Labour Party. It is not part of Socialist philosophy as such, and it has rent the party opposite in twain. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that in some sort of shambles Labour hon. Members will get together to vote for it tonight.
But for the troubles in the East End of the metropolis we would not have had the Bill. There will be plenty of opportunity in future to do something about Surrey Docks. and it is most unfortunate that we should have to suffer this Bill, which is totally unnecessary and which does not even accord with the philosophy of the Labour Party.
It is wholly wrong to include small ports within the ambit of the Bill. They are just not worth including. As a result of their inclusion, 20 to 30 workers in each, who are well looked after and who are able to earn a decent living, will lose their jobs altogether and then the Bill may lead to the closure of the activities of these ports.

Mr. Ron Thomas: I cannot for one moment accept the comments that the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) has made about that nonsense of an East End Mafia. I represent a constituency in which we have the ports of Bristol and Avonmouth, and there is no East End Mafia operating there. The dockers in my constituency, while they

would like to see certain amendments and changes in the Bill, certainly support it in principle.
We should not be surprised at all to hear Conservative Members making claims that the Bill will be an economic disaster and will impose a considerable financial burden on companies. That is the kind of response we have had from Tories ever since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. It has happened every time we have tried to improve the working conditions of working people in this country. It is like the time when they claimed that it was essential to send youngsters down the mines, otherwise the mining industry would collapse, or the time when they claimed that the twelfth hour brought in the profits, which would be lost if we introduced a shorter working week. They claimed then that companies up and down the country would collapse and that there would be economic disaster.
I am surprised at the kind of crocodile tears that the Conservatives shed about the imaginary threat of unemployment when they will rush into the Lobby to vote for massive cuts in public expenditure which will put perhaps hundreds of thousands more people into the dole queues. They want a continuation of the fragmented docks system. That suits the stevedoring and other private companies which are then able to set one group of dockers off against another, undermining the wages, conditions and procedures that have been built up in the docks by threatening one group of dockers that if they do not cut their manning scales or conform in some other way the cargo will be shifted to another dock. That is all part of the philosophy that the Tories support.
There has been reference to casual workers. One wonders how many of these casual workers are then presumably, for a good deal of their time, supported from the public purse. We are asked to accept the situation where private enterprise can exploit these working people when it suits them and then when the casual workers become unemployed they become a liability on public expenditure which the Conservatives want cut. I am amazed that the Conservatives should be taking this line, against their constituents. I am amazed that they do not demand for their constituents the rights, wages and conditions of employment which are enjoyed by registered dock workers.
The Dock Labour Scheme is an important beginning in industrial democracy. It involves the working people in decision-making. I would have thought that the Opposition, who often pay lip service to the involvement of working people in the decisions which affect their working lives, would have been demanding that the dockers in their constituencies should be treated equally with the dockers in Avonmouth, Bristol, London, Liverpool and elsewhere.
I have never known a piece of legislation to be so distorted by the media, by the Opposition and by their friends. They have created the image that thousands of dockers will be rushing into the cold storage units, grabbing jobs and making other people unemployed. That is nonsense. They have created the image of a trade union which is so powerful that it can hold the country to ransom. Yet the number of dockers has been cut by almost half in a decade. If that is the sign of strength, heaven help the dockers if they had a weak trade union. There would have been no dockers left.
We know that the multinational companies and the international companies have in many cases set up business outside the docks because they were not prepared to bear the kind of responsibilities for their working people that any decent employer should be prepared to accept.

Mr. David Price: Rubbish!

Mr. Thomas: I can assure my right hon. Friend that the Government have the full support of the dockers of this country in this legislation, and the sooner we get the Bill on to the statute book the better.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Fairbairn: There stands in my name an amendment to except, first, the port of Perth, and, second, the whole of Scoland, and hon. Members for the Scottish National Party have similar amendments.
Having listened to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) I find it almost amazing that he is interested in any human being at all. Let us be absolutely clear of the situation as it will happen. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) unfortunately upset his speech by being offensive about little

people. I am concerned in Perthshire with the little people and I am concerned with all little people. Let us be clear about the effect of the scheme on the port of Perth. It will increase prices and make that port uneconomic as it has part-time workers.
It will put up the price of the goods that come to the farmer, which means it will put up the price for the housewife. It will put up the price of exports, which means it will put up the price for the housewife. I have never understood the especial concern of Labour Members for dockers. In the Port of London we have between 1,500 and 2,000 dockers who draw their wages and do nothing. That is added to the price that the family has to pay to keep those people who do nothing. This scheme is intended to extend that addition to the wage earners' burden.
I do not understand the logic of Labour Members. It is all very well to speak of enormous ports, but do they not care for the little ports? Do they not care for the people who depend on the little ports? Do they not care for the people who have to pay the prices? In my constituency and in all rural constituencies in Scotland people pay higher prices while earning far lower wages. Do Labour Members not care that they are going to add to it? Do they not care that people working part time on low wages will be put out of their jobs in favour of people who will draw higher wages for doing nothing? When it comes down to the human being, they do not mind.
I trust that the Minister will listen to pleas for the exclusion of Scotland from this wretched, dictatorial, expensive scheme which will do nothing for the individual in our rural areas, our unemployed, or for our low-wage earners. It will greatly add to the prices that they have to pay. That is the penalty that the working man has to pay for Socialism.

Mr. Peter Rees: The amendments to which we are speaking read like a Gazetteer of the United Kingdom and demonstrate the range of interests likely to be affected by the Bill. It is nothing short of a public scandal that we should be having to debate these amendments under the guillotine so that a large number of my hon. Friends, perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and


Hythe (Mr. Costain), will be unable to defend their constituency interests. It is particularly scandalous that we should have inflicted on us against this timetable the irrelevant nonsense spoken from the Government Benches.
I ask through you, Mr. Speaker, the hon. ber for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas), who is posing as the bare-throated defender of dockers' interests, whether he has ever heard of Lord Shaftesbury. I suggest that he should concern himself with housing problems of which he has special knowledge and in which, apparently, he has a special interest.
I shall leave my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) to appraise the physical characteristics of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I tell him, through you, Mr. Speaker, that his speech was as usual a compound of arrogance, prejudice and ignorance, and the thinness of his case was barely concealed by the vulgar personal abuse to which he descended. I hope that when he comes to make a contribution on the Devolution Bill, because curiously he may find himself in sympathy with some of the comments made from the Opposition Benches, he will moderate his language as he may like us to fold him to our bosom, but not tonight.

Mr. Leadbitter: rose—

Mr. Rees: The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) asked us to be objective in our contributions. The hon. Gentleman's standards of objectivity are certainly not mine.
I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 52 and 53. Amendment No. 52 relates to the port of Richborough, whose capacity in peace and contribution in war has passed signally unrecognised.
As the time at my disposal is limited, I should prefer to pass on to the port of Dover. Some of my hon. Friends were disposed to describe this as a debate on the small ports. I hope that they will forgive me if I correct them. Dover is not only the premier Cinque Port—I speak with some diffidence in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Folk-stone and Hythe, but I, too, represent another Cinque Port—Sandwich—but

the premier passenger port of the kingdom. With its roll-on/roll-off business, it ranks third or four in fright traffic.
What will the Bill do for the harmony and efficiency of the port of Dover? [Interruption.] There is someone, who probably affects to represent the Patronage Secretary, who may wish to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. I should be willing to give way to the hon. Gentleman. Does he wish to intervene? Apparently the hon. Gentleman is prepared to intervene from a sedentary position, but has nothing to contribute on his feet.
Every contribution from the Government Benches has stressed—it is perfectly proper to do so—the interests of the dockers. But what do hon. Gentlemen have to say about the other interested parties who work in or near the docks? They might broaden their horizons a bit.
I should like to pose three important questions relating to Dover, and I hope that the Minister will condescend to answer them. First, operating from the port of Dover, as the right hon. Gentleman alone on the Government Benches will know, because all the other speeches from his hon. Friends have been suffused with incredible arrogance and ignorance, are British Rail and Sea Speed, which is a subsidiary of British Rail, and a range of private interests—the Dover Harbour Board and private stevedoring companies. How will Dover operate in the context of the Bill? Is it to be fragmented into two or three parts? I should like the Minister to deal with the practical implications for a port such as Dover.
Dover's problems are not the same as those of Harwich, which is controlled entirely by British Rail, or as those of Folkestone, which is also controlled by British Rail. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe will deal with the problems at Folkestone if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker.
Three unions operate at Dover. Tonight listening to Labour Members, one would imagine that only the Transport and General Workers' Union was represented in this House. But three unions operate at Dover: the National Union of Railway-ment, the National Union of Seamen and the Transport and General Workers' Union, some of whose members have dockers' cards and others of whom do


not. How will their interests be reconciled under the Bill? I should be interested to hear the Minister's reply on that matter.
Finally, there is the question of roll-on/roll-off freight. I have studied Part II of Schedule 3. I should like a positive assurance from the Minister that roll-on/roll-off freight will not be affected and that those who drive the trailers on or off the boats will not be regarded as carrying on dock work.
Study the Bill as I can, I cannot see that it will be good for Dover, for port users, or for all but a small fraction of those who work there. The Bill has been introduced by a Government blinded by prejudice and dogma. At the end of the day the country will recognise—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman who affects to represent the council house owners of Bristol, North-West might ponder this. The country will recognise that this Bill is nothing more than a crude bribe offered to Mr. Jack Jones on whom for the next four months the future of this Government depends.

Sir Anthony Meyer: The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) made great play of the Bill doing something for the well-being of the poor dockers in the non-scheme ports. I have news for him. The dockers in the non-scheme port of Mostyn in my constituency have wages and conditions that are every bit as good as those in the scheme port of Liverpool. They are members of the same union—the T &GWU—which has given full approval to the terms that the men have negotiated. The reason why the Bill will deprive workers in Mostyn of their jobs is that it will add so much to the costs of the port and similar ports that they will be put out of business.
The case against the Bill and against the inclusion of small ports is so overwhelming that we have had to take special care not to spoil our case by exaggeration, and we have not done so. We know that the board will be composed of sensible chaps who will do their utmost to safeguard the jobs of all dockers, but they will come under powerful pressure from dockers in the scheme ports to squeeze out the small ports that they see as a threat to their continued existence. This is a fact that

the Government try to push into the background, but the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) constantly drags it into the light and makes clear that the object of the Bill is to enable the scheme ports to absorb the non-scheme ports, drive them out of business and get the jobs.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) touched on this point in his most unfortunate speech. The tragedy of the dockers in the non-scheme ports is that they will not face up to what the Bill involves for them. Many dockers in Mostyn believe that, even if the Bill drives their port out of existence, they will get good jobs at the expense of others in the dockers' corridor and that they will get the warehousing, transport and distribution jobs in place of their own. But this is not a game of general post. It is a game of musical chairs in which a chair is removed every time, making one less place for the people to sit. As the number of ports is reduced, the number of jobs is also reduced.
I am concerned about the effect of including small ports on the unemployment situation in my part of Wales, which is greatly dependent on the activity of Mostyn and the firms working there. I am even more concerned about the effect of the Bill on what has been a healthy climate of industrial relations in North Wales and also that it might cause dockers to look enviously at the jobs of warehousemen, cause the warehousemen to look enviously at the transport jobs, and so on down the line.
I fear that the Bill will poison the happy atmosphere in industrial relations. For these reasons and because of the unemployment rate in my constituency, which is one of the highest in the United Kingdom, I hope that the Government will amend the Bill to exclude small ports from its operation.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I cannot imagine how the Bill was conceived, unless, as an hon. Member suggested, it was a form of Danegeld promised to Mr. Jack Jones.

Sir David Renton: It is Jonesgeld.

Mr. Stewart: I wish to deal with Amendment No. 263, which relates to the port of Stornoway in my constituency. I can tell the hon. Member for Bristol,


North-West (Mr. Thomas) that there will be nothing imaginary about the unemployment there—whatever may happen in the port of Bristol. In Stornoway, 20 or 23 dockers will inevitably lose their jobs if this legislation goes through, because the two stevedoring companies cannot afford to employ them full-time. The men are all members of the Transport and General Workers' Union.
The object of the Bill may be to give better wages and conditions, but what will the Government say to the men in my constituency? Will they say that they have arranged better wages and conditions and that it is a pity that the men are not in work to enjoy them?
9.30 p.m.
My area has the highest unemployment in the United Kingdom—month after month, year after year, decade after decade. It is 15·5 per cent. this month and male unemployment is 23 per cent., and it will grow. We have a cost of living which is near that of London. It is so high that the local authority has to give a weighting allowance of £3·50 a week. It is so serious that the Chairman of the Highlands and Islands Development Board wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland concerned about the effects of the Bill on the ports of Lerwick and Stornoway. He said:
The Board considers that an increase of this magnitude, which will apply in varying degree to other small ports, can only exacerbate the already serious problems of Island prices in relation to agriculture, construction and industry of all kinds. In drawing your attention to these adverse aspects of the proposed legislation the Board has asked me to express a hope that the Government may be prepared to consider appropriate amendments to the Bill.
I echo that wish on behalf of my constituency and all the small ports.
The Government have introduced a lot of unnecessary and mischievous legislation, but this Bill is the most lunatic of the lot.

Mr. David Crouch: It will not be immediately apparent to many hon. Members, perhaps, but as the Member for Canterbury I am also known as the Member for Whitstable, a very old Roman port in my constituency. It is a small port and this is a small matter, but it is nevertheless very important.
Many of us have been accused of having no knowledge of the great ports, of the Transport and General Workers' Union or of the dockers and their rights. The question is not whether we understand all these points of magnitude. Other hon. Members may have worked all their lives in this industry and be able to speak with more passion and understanding of what it means to be a docker, but every hon. Member has a duty to speak about his part of the country, no matter from what party he comes, and to see that it is well served by Parliament.
Every hon. Member, even on the Government side, has recognised the duty of Members of Parliament to serve the interests of their own areas and to ensure that this legislation does good to their part of the country and those who work there. Some parts of the Bill do not seem to do good to our parts of our country and to those who work there, whatever union they belong to.
The port of Whitstable has had for many years a flourishing coastal trade under the Dock Labour Scheme. Since 1963 that trade has been diminishing because it has been inhibited by the working of the scheme. It is not just that the scheme makes the operations more expensive, although that has been proved. I am not arguing for any diminution of wages. I am a great believer in the highest possible wages being paid where they can be paid and earned. What I am concerned about is the diminution of trade and the decline of business in the small port of Whitstable.
The Minister—I pay him this compliment—has been here throughout the debate. He is obviously concerned to hear those of us who wish to speak about 150 amendments and is concerned that all is not right with the Bill.
But we are not talking about the whole Bill. We are talking mainly about the extension of the scheme to small harbours and ports. This extension will inhibit the growth of trade in those ports. Since 1963, under the National Dock Labour Board, Whitstable has lost the timber trade that it used to have, with 500-tonners plying the coast and across the North Sea. We have lost the brick trade —the import of bricks from Denmark of a special type for our furnaces, particularly in electricity generating plants. We have lost it because of the inefficiency


of the Dock Labour Scheme, which caused the coasters to remain idle not for a few hours but for days on end, so that it was no longer economic to use this small port.
I may not be able to speak with the greatest authority about the intricacies of the working, but I can say that trade has gone from Whitstable, and it is believed by those who operate the port that it has gone because of the inflexibility of the scheme.
I ask the Minister to accept the pleas made on behalf of famous ports and small ports. This inflexible scheme to be applied by the Bill will not work to the advantage of the country. It will not necessarily work to the advantage of the new strategy which the Cabinet has embraced—that of extending industry and increasing the trade and wealth of the country. There are parts of the Bill which will positively act as a deterrent. This part of the Bill will do much more than that. It will promote an extension of inefficiency. I hope that the Government will listen with care to what we have said tonight.

Mr. Michael Marshall: I know that several of my hon. Friends wish to speak before the guillotine comes down, and I shall, therefore, be brief. I want to touch on the problems of the port of Littlehampton. Labour supporters who have tried to steer us into emotional arguments must recognise that Opposition Members are fully entitled to speak from practical experience of the problems of their areas.
Littlehampton is typical of several small ports about which there is the greatest suspicion and doubt. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) said, the power which the Secretary of State reserves unto himself, if applied, could result in the livelihood of those who work in small ports being directly threatened. As I shall show, the whole infrastructure upon which the area depends is also likely to be affected.
I am concerned that this is the thin end of the wedge and that the scheme may in future be extended to include road haulage. I shall be interested to hear whether the Secretary of State gives us an assurance on that.
I want to take the industries which are related to small ports. In my area they include horticulture, boat building and construction, all three of which are dependent on the small port's activities in employing part-time workers, who are employed part-time in turn by those industries. If part-time employment is taken away from the docks, those three industries will be seriously undermined.
We know about the boat builders' problems with VAT. Horticulture has difficulties with the subsidisation of oil, and so on. The difficulties experienced by the whole infrastructure will be compounded if the scheme goes through and applies to small ports such as Littlehampton.
It is not good enough for the Government to say that they are reasonable people who will apply the law reasonably. They must make clear beyond peradventure that they are willing to recognise the detailed arguments put forward tonight. The Government have in many ways tended to drive in blinkers and they feel that once they set out along a road, the acceptance of amendments suggests a loss of virility.
One can at least say that in putting forward misguided and doctrinaire measures the Government are making the way easier for those who believe that they will sow the seeds of their own destruction. I urge the Government to accept the amendments, because at least if they do that the country as a whole will be better in the short term as well as in the long term.

Mr. Aitken: The idiocy of the Bill, whose main effect is to pay Danegeld to Mr. Jack Jones's dockers at the expense of jobs and the economic survival of small ports, is nowhere better highlighted than by the tragic fate that lies in store for the port of Ramsgate in my constituency.
Ramsgate is a successful non-scheme port which handled more than £45 million of cargo last year. There are 20 unregistered dockers who work uncongenial hours because it is a tidal port. This causes them to operate at tidal times, even in the small hours of the morning. These dockers earn an average wage of £56 a week. They deserve that


wage even though it is paid for only 12 to 15 hours per week on average.
The future for them and for many others who work in ancillary trades around the harbour of Ramsgate is bleak and depressing if the Bill goes through and the scheme is extended to Ramsgate, because rising costs are such that there is no way that the employers could afford to go on keeping dockers at the scheme rate of pay for hours which they cannot in any case work. As a result, the plain truth is that Ramsgate harbour will have to close down from the point of view of handling trade.
If we were to stop there, that would be bad enough. In addition, there are the Pegwell Bay hoverport which will be affected and also Manston Airport, which are both within the five-mile zone. All these jobs creating centres which contribute so much to East Kent will be ruined if under the scheme high costs are imposed artificially and against the interests of the local community and the dockers themselves. I greatly hope that the Minister will note Amendments Nos. 67 to 69 in my name and will listen to the voices of others who have spoken for east Kent and other parts of the country.

Mr. Rathbone: In the two minutes and fifty seconds remaining before the winding-up speeches I wish to draw the Government's attention to the peculiarities of Newhaven, which is not confined to British Rail but which also has extensive back-up terminals. Contrary to what Labour Members have said, I wish to point out that the people who will be losing their jobs because of a loss of business are earning, for example, £55 or £51 per week minimum, or £82 a week on average last year. These are the people who will be put out of work by this idiotic piece of legislation.

Mr. Booth: I am replying to a debate in which the Government have been accused of being Socialist, doctrinaire and failing to act in accordance with their own philosophy. That is not an easy proposition to which to reply.
The attacks have been based upon two features of the Bill. One is the inclusion therein of the concept of a cargo-handling zone and the other is the Bill's failure, as its opponents see it, specific-

ally to exclude small ports from its provisions. I shall try succinctly to deal with both criticisms.
On the first criticism—that of including the concept of a cargo-handling zone—I want to say that in modern terms it is very difficult—more difficult than it has ever been previously—to define what is dock work without some recognition of a geographical limit. Work which has been historically performed at the quayside and on the docks has, with modern cargo-handling developments, in many cases moved inland. For instance, stuffing and stripping operations have moved to inland depots.
Had we brought before the House a Bill which ignored this factor and not said that there must be a geographical limit beyond which any other definition of dock work could go, we should have been criticised for doing that and should have been told quite properly that it was wrong to describe anything as dock work which could take place such a distance from the high water mark of our rivers or ports.

Sir David Renton: Then why is the right hon. Gentleman taking power in Clause 4(6) to do this by Order?

Mr. Booth: I shall come to that. The general proposition of Clause 4, and the point that it attacked by the new clause, is that there should be a geographical limit as such. I contend that it is genuinely required, particularly in view of modern developments that have taken place in cargo handling. What may be—indeed, what is—regarded as modern dock work when done within a few hundred yards of the quayside—for instance, the stuffing and stripping of containers—should not be regarded as modern dock work if it is done 30 or 40 miles from the high water mark.
I accept that we have in the Bill a provision by which we can extend the limit. There are some circumstances which one can envisage in which, with modem techniques, an extension might be necessary, but that would only be done with the approval of both Houses of Parliament and under the affirmative procedure.
9.45 p.m.
The difficulty of debating briefly the cargo-handling zone concept is that


one tends to concentrate upon the matter as if it were a sole or major test. In that way it cannot be seen in perspective and debated constructively, because alongside the test whether the work is done in a cargo-handling zone must be set the test of Schedule 3. Then one must look at the provisions of the Bill which will apply the more sophisticated tests.
One test is whether the work is being done under the present scheme. That test is applied by Clause 6. I hope that the House will not object to that test. More important for the purpose of the debate are the tests in Clause 8—for example, whether the work to be done is done by way of substitution for other work previously done by other registered dock workers; whether they require training, aptitudes and experience the same as, or similar to, those of registered dock workers; whether the work is done wholly or mainly by workers employed as casual labour.
If any of those tests is satisfied, that is not sufficient for the board to make a recommendation. One also has to inquire whether the work requires for its efficient performance the engagement of a permanent labour force, whether classification of the work would assist the making or improvement in the arrangements for creating and maintaining an adequate labour force, for rationalising the deployment of labour on any such work, and for removing anomalous distinctions between different categories of workers.
These are some of the many detailed and specific tests which the board has to take into consideration before it can make a recommendation to the Secretary of State that the work should be classified. To view the cargo-handling zone, as so many hon. Members have done in Committee and on the Floor of the House, as if that were the only test, as if every bit of work was to be classified, is to make a nonsense of the debate. I cannot believe that hon. Members who have studied the Bill can really believe that the cargo-handling zone has the significance that some have sought to attach to it.
I turn to the question of the small ports, which understandably has created so much concern. This has been a useful part of the debate since it has con-

centrated attention on the extent of casual labour that still goes on at our small ports. I recall particularly the words of one hon. Member who referred to casual labour in his constituency averaging 12 hours a week in the local port. In modern terms one cannot accept that there can be a case for people being employed on a 12 hours-a-week basis, unless there are special considerations and unless we are prepared to test by modern labour standards whether such an arrangement is necessary and whether we are prepared to test a better way of employing people and safeguarding their working conditions.

Mr. Aitken: May I intervene, as it was my constituency to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? Those dockers, who are members of the Transport and General Workers Union, are averaging £56 a week for working those 12 hours. They are well satisfied. They do not want to be in a dock labour scheme that will put them out of work completely.

Mr. Booth: But what people earn for doing casual work is not the only test whether these are acceptable labour conditions. One might consider the position at Montrose where there are only two registered dock workers and the rest of the work is done by men who have been out all night in fishing boats.
I now turn to the amendments and the places that they seek to remove from the Bill. Some of the places that the amendments seek to exclude do not even handle cargo. Some of the places deal only with account operations and they are, therefore, not affected by the Bill. Other places that the amendments seek to exclude fall to the test of Clause 7(7).
I remind the House that one of the tests applied by that clause is whether the work of a small port requires for its efficient performance the engagement of a permanent labour force. But if the work of a small port is such that it does not require that, it could not fall to be classified. We have explained the situation in Committee and in writing to hon. Members to make that crystal clear.
I draw the attention of the House to a Government amendment making it clear to all those concerned with the small ports that reports by the board resulting in classification have been taken


into account. Amendment No. 170 will require the board, when considering a recommendation for the classification of a small port, to provide copies of the report to all those employees and workers to which the report relates, to any trade union recognised by such an employer and to any other person concerned with the subject matter of the report. The amendment also requires that notice be given to employers and unions that one month is allowed for recommendations to be made to the Secretary of State. No one who is an employer or employee in a small port will be unaware of the intention of the board to make a report or that he may make representations to the board.
The subject of small ports arose not as a piece of Socialist doctrine, or as a result of a debate by the Fabian Society, but out of a report called for by a Conservative Minister of Transport, who asked the National Ports Council to make a survey of non-scheme ports and wharves. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) received a recommendation from the National Ports Council that the Secretary of State for Employment should consider what steps were open to him:
to eliminate casual engagement in those cases where it is used as a normal source of such cargo handling labour as is required on a relatively constant basis".
He was also recommended:
to ensure that for regular employees at non-scheme undertakings handling third-party traffic, the terms and conditions of employment on cargo handling including the basic rate of pay, hours of normal work, overtime rates, holiday entitlement, sick pay and pension arrangements and daily and weekly guarantees of payment should be not less favourable than the standards laid down for the industry as a norm.
The recommendation included a whole host of things which will not be brought about unless there is an extension of the scheme to a number of ports.
I recognise that there are a number of small ports which, by their geographical location, irregular nature of cargoes and a number of other factors, will not be suited to the scheme. But that can be tested by the Bill and the House. I therefore hope that the Government amendments will be accepted and that the other amendments will be rejected.

Mr. David Madel: The 25 Opposition Members who

have spoken have shown why we so strongly oppose the Bill in trying to bring small ports within its provisions. My hon. Friends have done a thorough job of consultation with employees in the small ports.
I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) said about the petition organised by the employees at the port of Montrose. There is no question of someone else having organised it for them. Their petition is yet another example of the opposition to incorporating small ports in the Bill.
We agree with Amendment No. 84 of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) and his Liberal colleagues to delete subsection (6) of Clause 4.
If there had been more time, we should have wished to discuss our Amendment No. 21 dealing with the half-mile zone. Our case is simply that once a five-mile zone is created it leads to trouble. The creation of zones results in arguments about classification of work. That is where the heart of the difficulties occurs. If the Government want to do a proper job of consultation with employees in small ports, they should design their promised industrial democracy Bill carefully and allow those people to say whether they want to come under the scheme.
There have been careless speeches from Labour Members, who have been confused about casual and seasonal work. Seasonal work is sometimes unavoidable. If Labour Members are worried, as they say they are, about working conditions and safety in non-scheme small ports, they should use the existing legislation, such as the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and the Employment Protection Act, to improve conditions if they believe that conditions need improvement. There is no need to make general attacks on our attitude to docks or whether we do or do not want adequate pensions for dockers. We want adequate pensions for every employee in the country. If hon. Members study the Official Report of the Committee proceedings, they will see what we have said about that.
Are the Government certain that they have evidence to show that the Bill is necessary and will lead to an improvement? Clause 4 is an attempt to deal


with the manpower problem in the London Docks area. In a discussion paper from the National Economic Development Office, Mr. John Hughes, who, one would imagine, is not normally a Conservative supporter, said at page 53:
It is likely, too, that the new government proposals"—
those in the Bill—
may reduce but not remove the continuing problems of development and planning that result from continuing technological changes, and locational changes in trading patterns.
The Secretary of State said in Committee:
Of course, in practice, what has happened up and down the country is that many of the places, the premises, and the work have been established by voluntary agreement—much more than by legal definition."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 23rd March 1976; c. 537–38.]
He referred to the case of the Aintree container depot. We constantly argued in

Committee, with regard to the definition of dock work and its classification, "Of course, proceed by voluntary agreement but do not ram the Bill and Clause 4 down the throats of the small ports and people involved in industries within the five-mile zone."

The Government would like to feel that they have the support of the trade union movement for the Bill, but they do not have that support. We have all the evidence from members of unions who do not like the Bill and think that the Government should think again about putting it on the statute book. The least the Government can do at this late hour is to think again about Clause 4 and to incorporate our amendments to it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 302.

Division No. 279.]
AYES
[10.00 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Crawford, Douglas
Grylls, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Critchley, Julian
Hall, Sir John


Alison, Michael
Crouch, David
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Arnold, Tom
Crowder, F. P.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Awdry, Daniel
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hannam, John


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)


Baker, Kenneth
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss


Banks, Robert
Drayson, Burnaby
Hastings, Stephen


Berth, A. J.
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Havers, Sir Michael


Bell, Ronald
Durant, Tony
Hawkins, Paul


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Dykes, Hugh
Hayhoe, Barney


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Benyon, W.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Henderson, Douglas


Bitten, John
Elliott, Sir William
Heseltine, Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Emery, Peter
Hicks, Robert


Blaker, Peter
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Higgins, Terence L.


Body, Richard
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Holland, Philip


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Eyre, Reginald
Hooson, Emlyn


Bottomley, Peter
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hordern, Peter


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Fairgrieve, Russell
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Farr, John
Howell, David (Guildford)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Fell, Anthony
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Brittan, Leon
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Brotherton, Michael
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hunt, John (Bromley)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Forman, Nigel
Hurd, Douglas


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Buck, Antony
Fox, Marcus
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Budgen, Nick
Freud, Clement
James, David


Bulmer, Esmond
Fry, Peter
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)


Burden, F. A.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Jessel, Toby


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Carlisle, Mark
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Carson, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Jopling, Michael


Channon, Paul
Glyn, Dr Alan
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Churchill, W. S.
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Goodhart, Philip
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Goodhew, Victor
Kershaw, Anthony


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Goodlad, Alastair
Kilfedder, James


Clegg, Walter
Gorst, John
Kimball, Marcus


Cockcroft, John
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Cope, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Kirk, Sir Peter


Cordle, John H.
Gray, Hamish
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Cormack, Patrick
Griffiths, Eldon
Knight, Mrs Jill


Corrie, John
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Knox, David


Costain, A. P.
Grist, Ian
Lamont, Norman




Lane, David
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Osborn, John
Sproat, Iain


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Stainton, Keith


Lawrence, Ivan
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lawson, Nigel
Paisley, Rev Ian
Stanley, John


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Pardoe, John
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Parkinson, Cecil
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Lloyd, Ian
Penhaligon, David
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Loveridge, John
Percival, Ian
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Luce, Richard
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Stokes, John


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pink, R. Bonner
Stradling, Thomas J.


MacCormick, Iain
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Tapsell, Peter


McCrindle, Robert
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Macfarlane, Neil
Prior, Rt Hon James
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


MacGregor, John
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Tebbit, Norman


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Raison, Timothy
Temple-Morris, Peter


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Rathbone, Tim
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Madel, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Reid, George
Thompson, George


Marten, Neil
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Mates, Michael
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Townsend, Cyril D,


Mather, Carol
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Trotter, Neville


Maude, Angus
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Tugendhat, Christopher


Maudllng, Rt Hon Reginald
Ridsdale, Julian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mawby, Ray
Rifkind, Malcolm
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Viggers, Peter


Mayhew, Patrick
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wakeham, John


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Mills, Peter
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Miscampbell, Norman
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Wall, Patrick


Moate, Roger
Royle, Sir Anthony
Walters, Dennis


Molyneaux, James
Sainsbury, Tim
Warren, Kenneth


Monro, Hector
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Watt, Hamish


Montgomery, Fergus
Scott, Nicholas
Weatherill, Bernard


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wells, John


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Welsh, Andrew


Morgan, Geraint
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wiggin, Jerry


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Shepherd, Colin
Wigtey, Dafydd


Morrison, Charles (Devices)
Shersby, Michael
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Silvester, Fred
Winterton, Nicholas


Mudd, David
Sims, Roger
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Neave, Airey
Sinclair, Sir George
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Nelson, Anthony
Skeet, T. H. H.
Younger, Hon George


Neubert, Michael
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)



Newton, Tony
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Normanton, Tom
Speed, Keith
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Nott, John
Spence, John
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Onslow, Cranley
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Buchan, Norman
Davidson, Arthur


Allaun, Frank
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Anderson, Donald
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Archer, Peter
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Armstrong, Ernest
Campbell, Ian
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Ashley, Jack
Canavan, Dennis
Deakins, Eric


Ashton, Joe
Cant, R. B.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Carmichael, Nell
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Atkinson, Norman
Carter, Ray
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cartwright, John
Dempsey, James


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Doig, Peter


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Clemitson, Ivor
Dormand, J. D.


Bates, Alt
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Bean, R. E.
Cohen, Stanley
Duffy, A. E. P.


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Coleman, Donald
Dunn, James A.


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Dunnett, Jack


Bidwell, Sydney
Concannon, J. D.
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bishop, E. S.
Conlan, Bernard
Eadle, Alex


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Edge, Geoff


Boardman, H.
Corbett, Robin
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Crawshaw, Richard
English, Michael


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Cronin, John
Ennals, David


Bradley, Tom
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Evans,loan (Aberdare)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Cryer, Bob
Evans, John (Newton)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Dalyell, Tam
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.







Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Loyden, Eddie
Rowlands, Ted


Fitt, Gerard(BelfastW)
Luard, Evan
Sandelson, Neville


Flannery, Martin
Lyons, Edward(BradfordW)
Sedgemore, Brian


Fletcher, L. R.(Ilkeston)
Mabon, Dr J.Dickson
Selby, Harry


Fletcher, Ted(Darlington)
McCartney, Hugh
Shaw, Arnold (IlfordSouth)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Ford, Ben
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Short, Rt. Hon E.(Newcastle C)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Short, MrsRenée (Wolv NE)


Fraser, John(Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mackintosh, John P.
Silkin, Rt Hon John(Deptford)


Freeson, Reginald
Maclennan, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C.(Dulwich)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McMillan, Tom (Gasgow C)
Sillars, James


Garrett, W.E. (Wallsend)
Madden, Max
Silverman, Julius


George, Bruce
Magee, Bryan
Skinner, Dennis


Gilbert, DrJohn
Mahon, Simon
Small, William


Ginsburg, David
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Golding, John
Marks, Kenneth
Snape, Peter


Gould, Bryan
Marquand, David
Spearing, Nigel


Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Spriggs, Leslie


Graham, Ted
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stallard, A.W.


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Stoddart, David


Grocott, Bruce
Meacher, Michael
Stott, Roger


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Strang, Gavin


Hardy, Peter
Mendelson, John
Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Millan, Bruce
Swain, Thomas


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hatton, Frank
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Thomas, Mike(Newcastle E)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Moonman, Eric
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Alfred(Wythenshawe)
Thorne, Stan (PrestonSouth)


Hooley, Frank
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Tierney, Sydney


Horam, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tinn, James


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Moyle, Roland
Tomlinson, John


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Tomney, Frank


Huckfield, Les
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Torney, Tom


Hughes, Rt Hon C.(Anglesey)
Newens, Stanley
Tuck, Raphael


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Noble, Mike
Urwin, T. W.


Hughes, Robert(Aberdeen N)
Oakes, Gordon
Varley, Rt. Hon Eric G.


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric
Wainwright, Edwin(Dearne V)


Hunter, Adam
O'Halloran, Michael
Walden, Brian(B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (EdgeHill)
Orbach, Maurice
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Ovenden, John
Ward, Michael


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Owen, Dr David
Watkins, David


Janner, Greville
Padley, Walter
Watkinson, John


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Palmer, Arthur
Weetch, Ken


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Park, George
Weitzman, David


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parker, John
Wellbeloved, James


John, Brynmor
Parry, Robert
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Johnson, James (HullWest)
Pavitt, Laurie
White, James (Pollok)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Whitehead, Phillip


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Pendry, Tom
Whitlock, William


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Perry, Ernest
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Judd, Frank
Phipps, Dr Colin
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Kaufman, Gerald
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Kelley, Richard
Prescott, John
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Kerr, Russell
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Price, William (Rugby)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Kinnock, Neil
Radice, Giles
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Lambie, David
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Lamborn, Harry
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wise, MrsAudrey


Lamond, James
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Woodall, Alec


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Woof, Robert


Leadbitter, Ted
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lee, John
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)



Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rooker, J. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lipton, Marcus
Roper, John
Mr.James Hamilton and


Litterick, Tom
Rose, Paul B.
Mr.Joseph Harper.


Lomas, Kenneth
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [20th July] to put forthwith the Questions on the amendments to the Bill, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given.

Clause 2

GENERAL DUTY OF THE BOARD

Amendments made: No. 11, in page 2, line 34, leave out second 'and'.

No. 12, in line 39, at end insert
'; and
(c) the probable cost to employers of implementing the proposal.'.—[Mr. Booth.]

Clause 4

SECRETARY OF STATE TO PREPARE NEW SCHEME

Amendments made: No. 18, in page 4, line 1, leave out 'forty' and insert 'sixty'.

No. 142, page 5, line 1, leave out 'forty' and insert 'sixty'.

No. 144, in page 5, line 4, leave out 'summary' and insert 'record'.—[Mr. Booth.]

Clause 5

OBJECTS OF THE NEW SCHEME

Amendments made: No. 147, in page 5, line 41, at end insert—
'(5A) In respect of any of the matters specified in paragraphs 1 to 3 of Schedule 2 to this Act, the Scheme may require dock employers and dock workers to accept obligations arising under a specified collective agreement (as for the time being in force) although not themselves parties to the agreement; but this is subject to subsection (6) below.'.

No. 150, in page 6, line 33, leave out 'forty' and insert 'sixty'.—[Mr. Booth.]

Clause 6

REVIEW OF WHAT IS NOW DOCK WORK

Amendments made: No. 152, in page 6, line 38, leave out from beginning to 'the' and insert
'Within the period of six months beginning with the appointed day'.

No. 155, in page 7, line 3, leave out '29th February 1976' and insert 'with the appointed day'.

No. 158, in page 7, line 10, at end insert—
'(2A) Copies of the Board's report shall be given—

(a) to all those who are, or have been at any time in the period of twelve months ending with the appointed day, employers of workers on work of any such category as is specified in subsection (2) above;
(b) to any trade union which is, or at any time in that period was, recognised by an employer in respect of any such workers; and
(c) to any other person appearing to the Board to be concerned with the subject matter of the report.'.

No. 160, in page 7, line 14, after 'and', insert '(a)'.

No. 161, in page 7, line 16, at end insert'; and
(b) subsection (2A) above also applies to this further report.'.

No. 162, in page 7, line 18, after 'port', insert
'(but not until the employers and trade unions referred to in subsection (2A) (a) and (b) above have had at least a month in which to make representations)'.—[Mr. Booth.]

Clause 7

LOADING AND UNLOADING OPERATIONS

Amendments made: No. 166, in page 8, line 18, leave out from 'of' to end of line and insert
'any of the substances mentioned in paragraph 15 of Schedule 3 to this Act'.

No. 169, in page 9, line 37, leave out 'summarise' and insert 'record'.

No. 170, in page 9, line 43, at end insert—
'(10) Copies of the Board's report shall be given—

(a) to all those who are employers of workers on work to which the report relates;
(b) to any trade union which is recognised by such an employer in respect of any such workers; and
(c) to any other person appearing to the Board to be concerned with the subject matter of the report,

together with an intimation by the Board that the employers and unions referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) above have one month in which to make representations to the Secretary of State.'.—[Mr. Booth.]

Clause 8

CARGO-HANDLING OPERATIONS IN GENERAL

Amendment made: No. 175, in page 11, line 34, leave out 'summarise' and insert 'record'.—[Mr. Booth.]

Clause 9

REFERENCE BY SECRETARY OF STATE TO THE BOARD

Amendments made: No. 177, in page 12, line 8, leave out 'forty' and insert 'sixty'.

No. 179, in page 12, line 20, leave out 'summary" and insert 'record'.—[Mr. Booth.]

Clause 14

CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN STATUTORY EXCEPTIONS

Amendments made: No. 182, in page 15, line 23, at beginning insert
'Subject to subsection (1A) below,'.

No. 185, in page 15, line 27, at end insert:—
'(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply where—

(a) the person became a registered dock worker in consequence of having been employed on work which became classified;
(b) at the date of the termination of his employment he has been continuously employed since a time before that work was classified; and
(c) as a result of the termination he ceases to be a registered dock worker.

(1B) Subject to any provision of the new Scheme as to circumstances in which a dock worker is to be treated as continuing in the employment of an employer, the provisions of Schedule 1 to the Contracts of Employment Act 1972 (computation of period of employment) and, so far as they modify that Schedule, the provisions of any order under section 10 of that Act and any regulations under paragraph 30(3) of Schedule 1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 have effect for the purposes of subsection (1A) in determining for what period an employee has been continuously employed; and, for the purposes of that subsection, a person's employment during any period is, unless the contrary is shown, presumed to have been continuous.
(1C) Section 31 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 (refund of contributions) applies to employees excluded by subsection (1) from entitlement to payments under that Act.'.

No. 186, in page 16, line 6, at end insert:—
'(3A) The Secretary of State may by order vary or revoke any of the provisions of subsections (1), (2) and (3) above; such an order may contain such transitional and other supplemental and incidental provisions as appear to him to be expedient.
No such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.—[Mr. Booth.]

Clause 16

ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 187, in page 18, line 3, leave out 'Any order under' and insert
'An order under section 14(3A) may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order under that subsection; orders under any other provision of'—[Mr. Booth.]

Clause 17

COMMENCEMENT AND REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 189, in page 18, line 9, after '1', insert ', section 6'.

No. 191, in page 18, line 21, leave out 'enactments which appear' and insert
'enactment contained in the 1966 Act which appears'.—[Mr. Booth.]

Clause 18

CITATION AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 192, in page 18, line 35, after 'Act', insert 'except section 1(6)'.—[Mr. Booth.]

Schedule 2

MATTERS FOR NEW DOCK LABOUR SCHEME

Amendments made: No. 195, in page 22, line 37, leave out from 'of' to 'the' in line 38 and insert
'registered dock workers and other dock workers who, though not registered, do work which is classified'.

No. 197, in page 22, line 39, leave out from 'and' to 'dock' in line 40.

No. 201, in page 23, line 17, after 'information', insert
'on such matters as are specified by the Scheme, being information'.—[Mr. Booth.]

Schedule 3

DESCRIPTIONS OF WORK WHICH MAY, AND THOSE WHICH MAY NOT, BE CLASSIFIED AS DOCK WORK

Amendments made: No. 205, in page 23, line 30, leave out 'bulk'.

No. 206, in page 23, line 33, at end insert—
';recording the time spent in handling loading or unloading cargo'.

No. 207, in page 23, line 34, leave out
'anything in which cargo is packed'
and insert
'containers, crates, boxes, pallets or other articles used for packing or loading and unloading cargo'.
No. 208, in page 24, line 5, leave out 'bulk'.
No. 209, in page 24, line 6, leave Out 'includes anything' and insert—

'(a) does not include a passenger's personal baggage carried on board by him;
(b) includes anything which has been'.

No. 210, in page 24, leave out lines 9 to 14 and insert—
'(b) goods which are to be, or have been, loaded as cargo in a ship are "cargo" at all times when they are within the cargo-handling zone; and'.

No. 213, in page 24, line 15, leave out 'ocean' and insert 'sea'.

No. 218, in page 24, line 31, leave out 'on' and insert 'at'.

No. 229, in page 24, line 43, after 'length', insert
'(as calculated for the purposes of registration under the Merchant Shipping Acts)'.

No. 231, in page 25, leave out lines 1 to 5 and insert—
'14. The ordinary work of those manning a vessel (not a sea-going ship) which either—

(a) is mainly or exclusively used to carry goods to or from premises outside the cargo-handling zone; or
(b) is mainly or exclusively used to carry goods to or from premises occupied for the purposes of a business and—

(i) is owned or operated by the occupier of the premises and manned only by his employees, and
(ii) is used mainly or exclusively to carry goods owned or produced by him.
In sub-paragraph (b) above references to the occupier of premises include any company which in relation to him is an associated company.
15. Any work at a site for the bulk storage (in fixed installations) of crude liquid

petroleum, natural gas, liquid products derived either from crude liquid petroleum or natural gas or both, liquid chemicals or liquefied gases.
Any work at a site for piping any of those substances to and from ships or other vessels'.

No. 234, in page 25, line 5, at end insert—
'15. Any work done at an aerodrome licensed under Part II of the Civil Aviation Act 1949 which is connected with the loading or unloading of aircraft.'.—[Mr. Booth.]

Schedule 4

PROCEDURE FOR RECOMMENDATION UNDER SECTION 8

Amendment made: No. 243, in page 27, line 35, leave out 'summarise' and insert 'record'.—[Mr. Booth.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Booth.]

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Prior: I begin by making a protest once more about the imposition of the guillotine, which is restricting the amount of time available for debate. Only three-quarters of an hour is left to discuss this important Bill and decide whether we should send it to another place.
On Third Reading we have to ask ourselves a number of questions. How will the Bill help the country? How will it improve our economic performance? Will it improve our costs, our trade, our delivery dates and, hence, our exports? How will others overseas look at the effect of the Bill? Does anyone think that people overseas will look at the Bill and what it is doing and shiver in their shoes because Britain is about to become that much more competitive?
There are few of us in the House—and the Bill has only a bare majority—or outside who believe that the Bill will help in any way in solving our problems There must be many Labour Members who voted for the Government's amendments and who will vote for Third Reading with a very heavy heart. We are bringing forward the Bill at a time when in Australia and elsewhere, the trend is to get rid of dock labour schemes and replace them with an employer-employee situation within a framework of good employment legislation— [Interruption]—yet we are busy extending our Dock Labour Scheme.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) may be interested to know that the Australians have agreed to scrap the equivalent of our National Dock Labour Board. All parties in the political spectrum there are agreed upon this. They are doing so because it is realised that the number of dockers has to be reduced. The system that we are furthering does not allow the necessary flexibility. The Australians know this, and they know too that they cannot afford the inbuilt costs which the National Dock Labour Board scheme system imposes. Any extension of such a scheme in this country must be a retrograde step.
We know that extra jobs will not be provided. Any idea that that would be the case has been shot out of the window. It was suggested that, in addition to extra jobs being provided, the dock workers' jobs would be protected. There will not be any extra jobs. It is a question of how quickly the number of jobs in the dock industry will be run down. As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), who has taken such an active part in all stages of the Bill, said earlier today, this is a game of musical chairs with one chair missing at each turn of the game.
What will the Bill do for employment? Labour Members ought to be interested in this. They keep on about the unemployment figures, almost as if they did not bear responsibility for them. They have a heavy responsibility for them. I am fed up with hearing people like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) telling us that we do not understand the working man and are not interested in him at a time when there are 1½ million unemployed. I want to see less unemployment from this Labour Government.
The Bill puts at risk employment in all the small ports. We have had numerous examples of this. That is one thing that the Bill does. The next thing is that it puts at risk employment in warehouses, cold stores and container depots throughout the country. The reason for that is simply this. If a number of dockers eventually find their way into those places, with their restrictive practices and working record the costs will rise and a number of those places will close down. In warehousing, developments are already taking place in North-West

Europe that will take the place of developments over here. The Bill will therefore affect the employment of people in building warehouses in Britain.
One of the factors in this is that British Rail ports, roll-on/roll-off ports, have been excluded from the effects of the Bill. They are one of the few places where there will be an advantage, because goods which would have been brought here in bulk will merely be brought to North-West Europe, broken down and shipped across in roll-on/roll-off transport. That is another way in which employment in this country will suffer.
Then there is all the risk in the fact that new building will not take place. Already one can pick up almost any property advertisement paper and see that the development of warehousing and the sale or renting of warehouses in the five-mile corridor has practically come to an end.

Mr. MacCormick: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that possibly what we ought to he trying to do is to abolish the whole concept of dock workers and move on to something else which perhaps dock workers could do?

Mr. Prior: There is a great deal in what the hon. Gentleman has been saying. I shall come to that point a little later.
We are told by a number of Labour Members "But it is the conditions of work that we must get right. The conditions of work in the non-scheme ports and some of the small wharves are not comparable with those in the scheme ports." The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) shot that one down. He merely said that his constituents would prefer to have a job than to have the best conditions in the world but no job to carry out in those conditions.
What does the Bill do to hold down prices? What does it do to help the Government's policy of price restraint? All the evidence that has been displayed by hon. Members in all parts of the House shows quite clearly that the only effect of the Bill can be to move prices upwards. Whether it be in regard to the movement of goods in and out of a cold store or in the container depots or


the warehouses, we all know that the long-term effect of the Bill will be to raise prices. Yet the Government, who all the time are preaching the need to keep down prices, are at the same time voting for a Bill of this nature. When we talk about hypocrisy in this House, we have only to look at the Government Front Bench to see it in action.
We all know that the possible introduction of the Bill has caused a great deal of industrial unrest. Some of my hon. Friends have been to the Dagenham cold store and have talked, as most of us have done, to shop stewards of the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and other unions. We all know that the effect of the Bill has been to disturb industrial relations. It is the cynicism of a Government who can specifically exclude the National Freight Corporation and British Rail from the operation of the Bill that makes everyone know that this is simply a Bill which has been put through for party-political purposes and is not in the interests of the nation.
There is no case for extension. No estimate of the additional jobs has been given to us at any stage of the Bill. The Secretary of State has refused from start to finish to say how many extra jobs for dockers he expects to be provided as a result of the Bill. He has said that he does not know. If he looks at the report of the Chairman of the Port of London Authority, he will see that that report alone will give him a very good guide as to how many extra jobs are likely to be provided. The answer, of course, is that there are no extra jobs available.
This is a thoroughly bad Bill, and when I see the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) sitting in her place I venture to say that it is not even very popular in her constituency, which has a lot of dockers. In fact, they showed just what they thought of the Bill at the recent by-election.
The right way to tackle this problem would have been to follow the advice of the Opposition and freeze the register with the names of those already on the National Dock Labour Board's register. Then the scheme could have been gradually run down and replaced by contracts

of employment entered into freely between employers and dockers. This would have been a way of dealing successfully with this old emotional problem. Had the Government thought about it seriously they would have realised this, and Labour Members would be doing a great service to the nation if they rejected the Bill tonight.
However, if the Bill goes on the statute book it will give wide enabling powers to the Secretary of State. These are not powers which I would ever recommend any Conservative Secretary of State using. For this reason, I ask my hon. Friends to reject the Bill.

10.27 p.m.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: It will be a difficult task for me to follow my predecessor, Mr. Hugh Delargy, who was one of the most respected Members of this House. He carried out his heavy duties as Chairman of the Selection Committee conscientiously and without fear or favour, and we all regret his tragic death. He served his constituency well for 26 years and was known for his kindness, thoughtfulness and sympathetic ear. He was always willing to help those who came to him with problems; and he never sought publicity for the actions he took on their behalf. He will be warmly remembered by his many friends in the constituency of Thurrock, which I now have the honour to represent.
My constituency makes a vital contribution to the nation's wealth through many and varied industries such as paper mills, cement works, power stations, oil refineries, margarine factories and others, including the great port of Tilbury. Thurrock now faces rising unemployment, and there are great fears and anxieties about this problem. For that reason I welcome the Bill, which aims to ensure the stability and permanence of employment for dockers.
The dockers, like many other working-class groups, are much maligned by the Opposition and the Press. They are hardworking and honest, yet they are subjected to continual attack and abuse. The Port of London Authority loses virtually nothing through pilfering year after year. Nor are dockers out to grab other people's jobs, although this is the picture which is often painted of them. Instead, they are legitimately concerned about the


stability and permanence of their own employment.
Over the last few years dockers have coped well with the technological changes in the industry and the changes in the development of world trade patterns. Their work force has been reduced from 60,000 in 1966 to 32,000 in 1975, and in many cases that reduction has been accepted without industrial unrest or dispute.
The purpose of the Bill is not to allow dockers to grab jobs at the expense of other workers—that was never its intention. In fact, it is to confirm dock work and to confirm the jobs of those engaged in work which is classified as dock work.
During the few months in which the Bill has been discussed in the House of Commons—and it has been discussed thoroughly and extensively—it has been under continual attack from the Opposition, from the media and from organisations which are interested in preserving the existence of docks outside the scheme where casual labour and substandard conditions of employment may prevail. That is the reason for their attack on the Bill.
The Bill is designed firmly to establish the National Dock Labour Board and thus to guard against casual working. It is to ensure that dock workers have satisfactory conditions of work. The board, far from being rigid as envisaged by the Opposition, will allow for the mobility of labour between ports and for the necessary flexibility to meet unforeseen changes in the patterns of trade. The board is envied by other workers who would very much like to end casual employment in their own work. The ship repairers, for example, at Tilbury would very much like to be in the position of the dockers, and it is hoped that soon they will be.
The Bill will not solve all the dockers' problems, because they are many and difficult, but it will allow for the problems to be tackled in the right way. It will allow the workers a say in their own conditions of work and it will continue the practice of joint regulation of employment in the docks, and that is what is important. For the Bill to have have real meaning for the dock workers, however, and for there to be a guarantee of security of employment, more will need to be done. There must be a direction

of work to the old-established and traditional ports like Tilbury in order to ensure that good employment is available there.
The Bill has been thoroughly misrepresented by the Opposition, particularly by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). But his opposition to it has been uncertain. He was unable to make up his mind earlier whether to claim that the Bill was better because of the changes put in by his party in Committee or whether to maintain that the Bill would lead to dockers taking over other people's jobs and bring about all the other ills which he has ascribed to it. In that respect, the trumpet note from the Opposition has been uncertain today.
Opposition to the Bill outside the House has been much more definite. There was a last-ditch stand over the weekend by the CBI, which reiterated its old claims that the Bill would give the dockers a stranglehold on goods leaving and entering the country, making it seem that dockers, apart from menacing other workers, were now to menace and blackmail the whole country—an absurd idea.
Those opponents to the Bill claim that it will increase port charges. They say that the five-mile corridor is far too great and that half a mile would be sufficient. But these claims only go to show their misunderstanding of the nature of dock work. There is far too little work outside the scheme ports to make any real difference to the nation's import bill. The half-mile corridor would be quite useless because it would need continually to be extended in order to cover the cargo-handling areas.
As for the unrest which the CBI claims will follow from enactment of the Bill, the aim is to regulate employment and to provide the best possible means of dealing with industrial unrest. No longer will there be the conflict favoured by the Opposition. Instead, there will be the continuing co-operation of employer and dock worker to ensure that all the problems faced by the industry are properly and carefully dealt with.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) on her maiden speech. It is noteworthy that she launched herself into the matter under debate, which


is hardly uncontroversial, but her contribution was none the less appreciated for that.
The Bill is irrelevant to the economic problems of the nation. It offers a stranglehold on many of the country's food supplies, and that is a potential danger. It is inflationary in that it proposes to increase the cost of distribution by £6 a ton. It will adversely affect our overseas trade. It will doubtless lead to industrial unrest, whatever might be said by Labour Members, because of the inevitability of disputes, and it will have an adverse effect upon investment in ports and related operations.
Faced with this possible list of difficulties, it amazes me that the Government seek to continue to proceed with the Bill. It is not right that we should be discussing the preservation of the docker for all time in relation to the economic needs of the country. The problems of the ports have been shown to be due to the difficulties of organising dock labour, of equipping the ports and of being able to plan the effective use of the ports. But it is no substitute to say that all ports must be maintained in the same situation as they were before, that work should be directed there and that there should be no change at all. This Government favour progress as long as it does not bring about change.
We cannot believe that, with 1·4 million unemployed, the Bill will make any contribution to the solution of our economic difficulties. We know that the Bill has been brought about by what we might term sleight of Foot, patched up with Mr. Jack Jones late at night. The only good argument that I have heard for metrication is that it will ultimately lead to the abolition of the foot.
This is a bad Bill, presented in a ham-fisted way and brought under the guillotine, thereby stifling debate on it, and the sooner we are rid of it the better.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Loyden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) on a carefully-thought-out and well-delivered speech. I hope that we shall hear a great deal more from her in future on the docks and, of course, other industries.
Tonight we have seen the consistent argument presented by the Opposition about the economic effects of the Bill. In the disclosure of their intentions, it has become apparent that the Opposition wish the industry to return to casualisation.
I do not suggest that the Bill presents the panacea to all the problems of the docks industry. Those who have worked in the industry are aware that the Docks Act 1947 and the first Regulations under it brought some degree of humanity and dignity into the lives of dock workers. That situation was brought about not by the consent of the employers but by the struggle of the dock workers over many decades. The 1947 Act ended the inhuman casual work nature of the industry and brought into effect the changes that dockers had rightly and justifiably fought for over the years. Since that time there has been report after report about the future of the docks industry.
Dock workers have suffered a reduction of over 50 per cent. in job opportunities. The Opposition rightly make the point that a similar situation obtains among miners, railway workers and others. But the point they fail to make is that, no matter what reduction in job opportunities has taken place in those industries, miners still dig coal and railway workers still drive the trains and man the railways.
What has happened in the docks industry? By an act of deliberate policy, the employers have moved away from dockland work which has traditionally been performed by dock workers. There has not been a reduction in work to create the loss of 50 per cent. of employment opportunities. That situation was brought about by the employers moving work away from the docks industry. Therefore, the dock workers recognised that they would have to do something about it.
In 1972 the Conservative Government had an opportunity of dealing with this problem through what they would call the peaceful role. The Jones-Aldington study set out the alternatives for dealing with the problem of the stuffing and stripping of containers which was taking place in the highways and byways, in prisons and in other places.
The employers are concerned only with undercutting the dock worker. They want to be relieved of the responsibility of continuing to pay a levy to the NDLB which has been the basis on which the industry has been built. That is why they want to get away from the highly-organised workers in dockland to areas of high exploitation. That is what caused the reduction in the number of job opportunities in the docks.
The Opposition failed in 1972 to grasp the opportunity to accommodate the wishes of the T & GWU and other unions in the industry to find a way of dealing with these problems. They rejected that approach out of hand and made it necessary to bring in legislation to give effect to the Jones-Aldington Report.
That report was not designed by, or in the interests of, the Transport and General Workers' Union. It was prepared by people held in great respect throughout the industry. The Bill is essential because the report was not implemented. We need this measure if we are to have continuity of employment in the industry and if we are to avoid a return to casualisation.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) on a very well-delivered maiden speech. I visited her constituency during the recent by-election campaign and I suggest to her that large numbers of the people who habitually support the Labour Party would not agree with her remarks tonight. This was shown in the election result. However, I do not wish to be controversial about her maiden speech and I wish that I could have made such a good first speech myself.
I regard the Bill as a tragedy, taking us in precisely the wrong direction. I was not aware that the stuffing and stripping of containers was taking place in Parkhurst and Albany. I am interested in that piece of information from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden).
I do not think that we have to go back to casualisation to do something different in the docks. Surely we all agree that we need to increase our exports. The Government have said that they are trying to get the economic position right by instituting an export drive. Does the Bill

help that objective? I suggest that it does not. Our exports need to be dealt with quickly and efficiently, which means increased productivity and no damaging disputes such as those we have seen in the past. I fear that the Bill will achieve the opposite results.
There are many efficient scheme ports. Southampton, which I visited recently, is one, but why should firms in the five-mile corridor have to make yet more returns and fill in yet more forms for a local or national docks board? We are not sure at which level this work will be done, but I hope the Minister realises that it should be done at a local level.
Do we not have enough bureaucracy? Should we not be trying to reduce the number of administrators who rule our lives? Is it necessary to have elaborate visitations round our coast to decide whether ports like Cowes, in my constituency, or Shoreham should be included, when it should be obvious to the most dim-witted of persons that they should not? For goodness sake, leave alone the ports which are doing a good job.
There will undoubtedly be disputes. I have no doubt that there will be inter-union disputes, just at a time when in most parts of the country there are signs of industrial peace and co-operation. We all know of the fears of unions members in our constituencies. I have received a petition signed by about 30 members of the Transport and General Workers' Union working in the port of Newport in the Isle of Wight. If many of the small ports are to be included, costs will inevitably rise because part-time workers will be dispensed with and registered dockers will have to be employed in their place. This is very worrying in a constituency like mine, with a cost of living some 5 per cent. above the national average, and possibly higher, and with a high level of unemployment, which went up to about 9 per cent. last Christmas. The latter figure is down at the moment but it will undoubtedly rise in the autumn.
It is still to be hoped that the other place will achieve what we who served on the Committee failed to pull off. Perhaps even the Government will relent at this late hour. In the meantime, all we can do is to show with our votes how much we disapprove of this ill-considered Bill.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe: The Bill has found few friends today, and it is perhaps significant that throughout the Committee stage Members on the Government side tended to be below the Gangway rather than behind the Government Front Bench.
I wish to be brief, but may I refer to at least one friend that the Bill has found today? I refer to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald), whom I congratulate on her maiden speech, which was delivered with great confidence and charm.
The hon. Lady may well have created a precedent, because I know of no other occasion when a maiden speech has been made during a 45-minute debate under an allocation-of-time guillotine, but perhaps it was appropriate because the last occasion when the hon. Lady's predecessor, the late Hugh Delargy, spoke in the House was on the Second Reading of this Bill, and he was a well-respected and well-liked Member of the House. I am sure that all parts of the House were pleased with the tribute that the hon. Lady paid to him.
This piece of legislation, however, is damaging and divisive. It is an unnecessary and unwanted Bill. It increases costs, reduces efficiency and eliminates job opportunities, and many Labour Members know how staggeringly irrelevent its provisions are to the needs of our time. What possible relevance has the Bill to the 1·46 million people unemployed or to the other 200,000 school-leavers who are devoid of a job? How cynically they must look upon Government Ministers who spend their time in promoting this measure.
Yet we have had no indication of Labour votes against this legislation or of abstentions from the Labour Benches tonight. We may well ask "Where have all the moderates gone?" and get the answer "Lobby fodder every one." Perhaps the passage of the Bill will enhance the reputation of the Government Whips—and, believe me, they need to have their reputations enhanced—but certainly it will diminish the standing of those who are the self-styled social democrats on the Government Benches.
If, as I fear, this nasty Bill is given a Third Reading, a particular responsi-

bility will rest upon their Lordships in another place. Conservatives, Liberals, cross-bench peers and perhaps, in Committee, some Labour peers with the guts to stand up for what they believe in will look askance at the Bill's uneven provisions and make major amendments to it. We in this House will then have a second chance to look at this legislation.
Much can happen in three months. I wish no personal harm or injury to any hon. Member, but the Government have had their share of the luck in by-elections and perhaps their luck will run out in the next three months. Perhaps even the Manifesto Group will find its political nerve. Who knows what wonders might not happen in that time?
Let us be clear tonight as the guillotine falls, leaving so much of this measure undebated, that the national interest demands that the Bill should not become law. We shall vote against it tonight, and if it manages to scrape through we shall return to the attack on this nasty measure in the autumn.

11.51 p.m.

Mr. Booth: I should like first to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) on her maiden speech. We knew before she came how welcome her vote would be: we now know how welcome her voice is as well.
At a time when there is much controversial legislation before the House, the Opposition have kept their most vicious attacks for this Bill. Some of their criticisms are notable. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) was the first to describe it as a squalid deal betwen my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and Jack Jones. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) was the first to say that the Bill would give the dockers a stranglehold over the whole community through the control of food supplies. That has been reiterated many times since. The Bill has been criticised as increasing costs, preventing flexible use of labour, making for poorer industrial relations and involving unnecessary bureaucratic control.
Yet with all that criticism by the Opposition, during all our long debates in Committee, there has been a void.


What has been missing is any alternative strategy from the Opposition. [Hon. Members: "Throw it out."] They have criticised the existing Dock Labour Scheme and they have criticised the Bill's provisions. Having done so, surely they must have an alternative. They cannot believe in what we propose, and they cannot believe in the existing scheme, yet their most constructive suggestion is that we should throw it out.
Against the background of the history of the troubles in the docks and the failure to deal with the situation by appropriate and up-to-date legislation, nothing could be more thoroughly irresponsible than to say that the situation can be met by the phrase "Throw it out".
Even at this late stage we must face the fact that the existing scheme has remained unchanged since its introduction and that at each port to which it applies there are long and complex legal definitions, which might be of interest to students of our history but bear no relationship to the requirements of a modern docks industry. For example, at the port of Ardrossan the existing scheme applies to the work of cargo handling, except for the work of persons directly engaged in horse or capstan movement. At the port of Fleetwood the scheme does not apply to scrubbing and catching when performed by boys. One could go through a whole list of these variations and challenge anyone with a knowledge of the dock work industry to say that they are relevant to the needs of a modern industry.
A whole series of recommendations by impartial inquiries have told this House the same thing, yet on Second Reading the suggestion from the Opposition Front Bench was that there should be another inquiry. The Conservative Front Bench ignored the Bristow inquiry in 1970 and in 1972, after the third national dock strike following the Industrial Relations Act, decided to ignore the advice of the National Ports Council in relation to non-scheme ports. The Conservative Front Bench was prepared to leave until 1974 the Jones-Aldington Report, which also recommended that the Government should take action to deal with non-scheme ports. Still the Conservatives have not come forward with an alternative strategy.
When I quoted in the timetable debate the recommendation of the Jones-Aldington Report, I was challenged by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby, who said that it did not recommend legislation—

Mr. Brittan: It was not the Jones-Aldington Report I challenged; it was the ACAS Report. That is a very different report, and I made a very proper challenge.

Mr. Booth: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. He is right; it was the ACAS Report. I shall quote it in full so that he can never again say that it did not contain recommendations for legislation.
The hon. Gentleman said on 20th July:
there is nothing in the report that says that the legislation is desirable or necessary".—[Official Report, 20th July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 1667.]
The ACAS Report stated:
One of the central issues in this and previous inquiries has been the legal definition of dock work. It seems clear to us that a definition set up in the 1940s has given rise to a line of interpretation which has become established by precedent and has thus been passed down into the 1970s, when the economic, technological and industrial relations environment has changed dramatically. It is not for us to say how the legislation should be changed—that is a matter for Government. But it does seem to us that it should be changed as soon as possible. Previous recommendations for legal reform have been frustrated, and it is understandable that those whose jobs are at stake should be impatient to see real action,
The recommendation was
that Government, having brought forward its proposals"—
that is what we are talking about tonight, the Government's proposals which were referred to by that ACAS report—
for legislation relating to registered dock-work, should make every effort to give these proposals legal effect within the minimum period possible.
That is what we are seeking to do tonight.
The Bill provides orderly and sensible procedures for determining the proper application of the scheme in the light of modern conditions. What we have sought to do in the Bill, after the fullest consultation and with the support of the TUC, is to ensure that the legislation relating to the employment of dock


workers is brought up to date and can remain relevant in the swifty-changing conditions in the industry. I believe that the Bill is the best way of achieving those aims, and in that spirit I commend it to the House.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. David Price: I protest very strongly about the guillotine, because I would have responded to the Secretary of State had I been able to put proposals to him for local dock labour boards as an alternative to the scheme he envisages.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that this is an enabling Bill. Therefore, we must consider how it will be implemented in practice. I believe that the Minister may have some sympathy for local schemes with a great deal of local variation. That is the system

that I would prefer. That is precisely what the Australians are doing, following an inquiry set up by the previous Labour Government in Australia. Bearing in mind the turbulent history of the waterfront in Australia, we can learn something from what the Australians have decided.

This also coincides with the depth of feeling among people across the political spectrum who want to get our industrial relations much more—

It being Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [20th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed front the Chair.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 299.

Division No. 280.]
AYES
[11.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Allaun, Frank
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Anderson, Donald
Crawshaw, Richard
George, Bruce


Archer, Peter
Cronin, John
Gilbert, Dr John


Armstrong, Ernest
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Ginsburg, David


Ashley, Jack
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Golding, John


Ashton, Joe
Cryer, Bob
Gould, Bryan


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Gourlay, Harry


Atkinson, Norman
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Graham, Ted


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dalyell, Tam
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davidson, Arthur
Grant, John (Islington C)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Grocott, Bruce


Bates, Alf
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Bean, R. E.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hardy, Peter


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Deakins, Eric
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Bidwell, Sydney
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bishop, E. S.
deFreitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hatton, Frank


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Boardman, H.
Dempsey, James
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Doig, Peter
Heffer, Eric S.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dormand, J. D.
Hooley, Frank


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Horam, John


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Bradley, Tom
Dunn, James A.
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunnett, Jack
Huckfield, Les


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Edge, Geoff
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Buchan, Norman
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Hunter, Adam


Buchanan, Richard
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
English, Michael
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Ennals, David
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Campbell, Ian
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Janner, Greville


Canavan, Dennis
Evans, John (Newton)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Cant, R. B.
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Carmichael, Neil
Faulds, Andrew
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Carter, Ray
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Cartwright, John
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
John, Brynmor


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Johnson, James (HullWest)


Clemitson, Ivor
Flannery, Martin
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cohen, Stanley
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Coleman, Donald
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Judd, Frank


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Ford, Ben
Kaufman, Gerald


Concannon, J. D.
Forrester, John
Kelley, Richard


Conlan, Bernard
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Kerr, Russell


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Corbett, Robin
Freeson, Reginald
Kinnock, Neil




Lambie, David
Ogden, Eric
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Lamborn, Harry
O'Halloran, Michael
Stoddart, David


Lamond, James
Orbach, Maurice
Stott, Roger


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Strang, Gavin


Leadbitter, Ted
0venden, John
Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R.


Lee, John
Owen, Dr David
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Padley, Walter
Swain, Thomas


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Palmer, Arthur
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Lipton, Marcus
Park, George
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Litterick, Tom
Parker, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Lomas, Kenneth
Parry, Robert
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Loyden, Eddie
Pavitt, Laurie
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Luard, Evan
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Tierney, Sydney


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Pendry, Tom
Tinn, James


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Perry, Ernest
Tomlinson, John


McCartney, Hugh
Phipps, Dr Colin
Tomney, Frank


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Torney, Tom


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Prescott, John
Tuck, Raphael


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Urwin, T. W.


MacKenzie, Gregor
Price, William (Rugby)
Varley, Rt. Hon Eric G.


Mackintosh, John P.
Radice, Giles
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Maclennan, Robert
Richardson, Miss Jo
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Madden, Max
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Magee, Bryan
Robinson, Geoffrey
Ward, Michael


Mahon, Simon
Roderick, Caerwyn
Watkins, David


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Rodgers, George (Chor'ey)
Watkinson, John


Marks, Kenneth
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Weetch, Ken


Marquand, David
Rooker, J. W.
Weitzman, David


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Roper, John
Wellbeloved, James


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Rose, Paul B.
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
White, James (Pollok)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Sandelson, Neville
Whitehead, Phillip


Meacher, Michael
Sedgemore, Brian
Whitlock, William


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Selby, Harry
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Mendelson, John
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Mikardo, Ian
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Millan, Bruce
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Moonman, Eric
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Sillars, James
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Silverman, Julius
Woodall, Alec


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Skinner, Dennis
Woof, Robert


Moyle, Roland
Small, William
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Snape, Peter



Newens, Stanley
Spearing, Nigel
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Noble, Mike
Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Oakes, Gordon
Stallard, A. W.
Mr. James Hamilton.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Bulmer, Esmond
Dykes, Hugh


Aitken, Jonathan
Burden, F. A.
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Alison, Michael
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Arnold, Tom
Carlisle, Mark
Elliott, Sir William


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Carson, John
Emery, Peter


Awdry, Daniel
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Channon, Paul
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)


Baker, Kenneth
Churchill, W. S.
Eyre, Reginald


Banks, Robert
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Beith, A. J.
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Bell, Ronald
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Farr, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Clegg, Walter
Fell, Anthony


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Cockcroft, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Benyon, W.
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Cope, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bitten, John
Cordle, John H.
Forman, Nigel


Biggs-Davison, John
Cormack, Patrick
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Blaker, Peter
Corrie, John
Fox, Marcus


Body, Richard
Costain, A. P.
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Freud, Clement


Bottomley, Peter
Crawford, Douglas
Fry, Peter


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Critchley, Julian
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Crouch, David
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Crowder, F. P.
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Brittan, Leon
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)


Brotherton, Michael
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bryan, Sir Paul
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Drayson, Burnaby
Goodhart, Philip


Buck, Antony
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Goodhew, Victor


Budgen, Nick
Durant, Tony
Goodlad, Alastair







Gorst, John
Macfarlane, Neil
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
MacGregor, John
Royle, Sir Anthony


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sainsbury, Tim


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Gray, Hamish
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Scott, Nicholas


Griffiths, Eldon
Model, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Grist, Ian
Marten, Neil
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Grylls, Michael
Mates, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hall, Sir John
Mather, Carol
Shepherd, Colin


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maude, Angus
Shersby, Michael


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maudiling, Rt Hon Reginald
Silvester, Fred


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mawby, Ray
Sims, Roger


Hannam, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sinclair, Sir George


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mayhew, Patrick
Skeet, T. H. H.


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Hastings, Stephen
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Havers, Sir Michael
Mills, Peter
Speed, Keith


Hawkins, Paul
Miscampbell, Norman
Spence, John


Hayhoe, Barney
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Moate, Roger
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Henderson, Douglas
Molyneaux, James
Sproat, Iain


Heseltine, Michael
Monro, Hector
Stainton, Keith


Hicks, Robert
Montgomery, Fergus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Higgins, Terence L.
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Stanley, John


Holland, Philip
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hooson, Emlyn
Morgan, Geraint
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Hordern, Peter
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stokes, John


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Stradling, Thomas J.


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Mudd, David
Tapsell, Peter


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Neave, Airey
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Hurd, Douglas
Neubert, Michael
Tebbit, Norman


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Newton, Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Normanton, Tom
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


James, David
Nott, John
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wansfd &amp; W'df'd)
Onslow, Cranley
Thompson, George


Jessel, Toby
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Osborn, John
Townsend, Cyril D.


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Trotter, Neville


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Jopling, Michael
Paisley, Rev Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pardoe, John
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Penhaligon, David
Viggers, Peter


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Percival, Ian
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Kershaw, Anthony
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Wakeham, John


Kilfedder, James
Pink, R. Bonner
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Kimball, Marcus
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Wall, Patrick


Kirk, Sir Peter
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Walters, Dennis


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Raison, Timothy
Warren, Kenneth


Knight, Mrs Jill
Rathbone, Tim
Watt, Hamish


Knox, David
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Weatherill, Bernard


Lamont, Norman
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wells, John


Lane, David
Reid, George
Welsh, Andrew


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Wiggin, Jerry


Lawrence, Ivan
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wigley, Dafydd


Lawson, Nigel
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Ridsdale, Julian
Winterton, Nicholas


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Lloyd, Ian
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Loveridge, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Younger, Hon George


Luce, Richard
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)



McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


MacCormick, Iain
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


McCrindle, Robert
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Mr. Cecil Parkinson.


Question accordingly agreed to.


Bill read the Third time and passed.

COMMUNITY LAND ACQUISITION

11.15 p.m.

The Minister for Planning and Local Government (Mr. John Silkin): I beg to move,
That the Acquisition from the Crown (Grants) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th July, be approved.
With the leave of the House I propose, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we take at the same time the second Order,
That the Compulsory Acquisition by Public Authorities (Compensation) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th July, be approved.
The Orders are both concerned with applying to certain land transactions within the public sector the principle of the community land scheme under which acquiring authorities are enabled to buy land for development at reduced prices.
The Compulsory Acquisition by Public Authorities (Compensation) Order, does two things. First, in article 3, it lists five bodies in addition to those specified in Section 26 of the Community Land Act to whom the arrangements in article 4 will apply. Second, in article 4, it modifies the rules for the assessment of compensation for compulsory purchase in their application to transactions between these bodies. I shall deal with the second point first.
The Order is necessary because until the second appointed day—when the basis of compensation will change to current use value—compensation for the compulsory purchase of land from the private sector will continue to be determined on the market value basis laid down in the Land Compensation Act 1961, or the corresponding Scottish Act of 1963, but the price the local authority actually pays will be reduced by the amount of any development land tax for which the vendor is liable.
What we could not do in the Community Land Act, because it preceded the Development Land Tax Act, was to make provision for similar arrangements to apply to transactions between local authorities and certain other public sector bodies. However, in anticipation of the Development Land Tax, Section 26 of the Community Land Act provided for the modification, by Order requiring the

approval of both Houses of Parliament, of the statutory rules for assessing compensation for compulsory purchase, in this limited field only. Of course, compulsory purchase between public authorities is almost unheard of, but it is the practice to apply the compensation rules to purchases by agreement, and it is in this context that the provisions of the Order will normally be relevant.
The principle underlying the net-of-tax purchase provisions of the Development Land Tax Act is that the benefit of being able to acquire development land at reduced prices should go to the authority which is to develop the land or bring it into development. The modifications to the compensation rules as set out in article 4 of the Order are designed to apply that principle to transactions between the specified public sector bodies, all of whom are both exempt from development land tax on disposing of land and entitled to deduct tax on buying it.
The effect of the modifications will be to reduce the cost to the acquiring authority by approximately the amount of development land tax which would have been due if the land were in private ownership.
Article 4(2) of the Order achieves the desired "net-of-notional-tax" result by providing that compensation shall be assessed as the difference between the normal open market value and the amount of development land tax that would have been deductible if the land were being acquired from a person liable to the tax. But since no actual tax liability is involved, certain assumptions, set out in paragraph (b) of the modified rule (2), have to be imported: first, that the selling body was not totally exempt from development land tax; second, that the time of the disposal is the date at which the compensation is to be assessed; third, that the consideration, from which the calculated amount of "notional" tax falls to be deducted, was the open market value; fourth, that the vendor's cost of acquisition—for the purpose of calculating notional tax—did not include any tax deducted by that body when it acquired the land—without that assumption, the benefit of the reduced price system would not be passed on to the acquiring body as intended; fifth, that no development value had previously been realised by the vendor.
Paragraph (3) of article 4 has the effect that the modified basis—the "net-of-notional-tax" basis—does not apply where the land being transferred was acquired by the vendor before 1st August 1976, when development land tax system begins to operate.
Article 3 specifies five additional bodies to whom the modified basis of compensation will apply. I have already explained the relationship of the order to the development land tax system, and hon. Members who have been studying the Development Land Tax Act may have noticed that these five bodies are among those specified in Section 11(2) as being exempt from development land tax. But they are also authorities which may be authorised to purchase land compulsorily, and they will therefore deduct tax when acquiring land from a person liable to pay it. They are bodies having functions and responsibilities which are broadly similar to those of the land scheme authorities themselves, namely, to develop land, or arrange for it to be brought into development, for the benefit of the community.
The comparability of these bodies with local authorities has been recognised for Community Land Act purposes by including them in the Community Land (Outstanding Material Interests) Order 1976, which came into operation on 6th April. It is therefore appropriate to bring them within the circle of bodies to which the net-of-notional-tax arrangements apply.
The Acquisition from the Crown (Grants) Order, which requires the approval of the House of Commons only, runs parallel to article 3 of the compensation Order, but in relation to acquisitions by the same five bodies from the Crown.
Since the Crown is outside the scope of the Development Land Tax Act, and also because land cannot be acquired compulsorily from the Crown, the arrangements for enabling public authorities to buy Crown land at reduced prices are covered not by Section 26 of the Community Land Act but by Section 40.
Under that section, the Secretary of State may make to any body mentioned in subsection (1), or specified in an Order under that subsection, a grant in respect of the acquisition of land from the

Crown. The intention behind Section 40 is that where the authorities buy land from the Crown the price they pay should correspond with what it would have cost them if the land were being acquired from a person liable to pay development land tax. But because the Crown is not liable to DLT, the land will be transferred at market value and the acquiring authority will receive a grant representing the DLT that would otherwise have been payable.
Article 3 and the schedule to the Order specify five additional bodies to whom the grant arrangements are to apply; and as I have said these are the same five bodies referred to in the Public Authorities (Compensation) Order. The reasons for applying that Order to them apply equally to the Section 40 grants scheme, and the grants Order provides accordingly.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: Before the Minister sits down—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The Minister has sat down.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: I thank the Minister for the clear way in which he explained the meaning of the two Orders. At the same time, however, I wish to express the distaste of the Opposition for the way in which the Compulsory Acquisition by Public Authorities (Compensation) Order operates.
The Order seeks, by Statutory Instrument, to make a substantive change in legislation. As the Minister knows from our many discussions during the passage of the Community Land Act through this House, one aspect of it that we disliked more than any other was the arbitrary powers being given to the Government in a whole variety of ways. The specific instance now before us is that the Minister can now, by way of a Statutory Instrument, ask the House to amend an existing Act of Parliament.
In article 4 of the Order to which I have referred we are replacing part of a section of the Land Compensation Act 1961. In the ordinary way, such an amendment of legislation requires an Act of Parliament—an Act that follows the due legislative processes through both


Houses, when the matter is fully probed and ventilated. Indeed, the Minister is seeking by this device of a Statutory Instrument to amend substantive legislalation. Not only is this a matter of concern to all Members; it is a matter that causes great difficulty to people outside the House who are confronted with the task of interpreting and advising upon legislation. It is difficult enough, where there are a number of Acts, one amending the other, for legal advisers to be able to thread their way through the statutes, ariving ultimately at the up-to-date situation. As a practising lawyer, the right hon. Gentleman knows what difficulties can be encountered by solicitors and members of the Bar.
The matter is made even more difficult when such advisers not only have to refer to statutes but have to try to find various Statutory Instruments that may or may not be issued from time to time at the whim of a Minister, altering Acts of Parliament. The task of being up to date in the law and being able to advise citizens of their rights becomes well-nigh impossible when a process of that kind is followed. One cannot do anything but deplore it.
I turn to the Order. If I understood the Minister correctly, it not only relates to acquisitions of land between public authorities but can operate between public authorities and private citizens. I thought I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say—no doubt he will correct me if I am wrong—that he is now adding five new authorities under article 3 to those authorities that now have the power of acquiring land net of development land tax. I understood the Minister to say that that means they would be in the same position as local authorities under the Act and could therefore acquire on that basis from other authorities who were not liable to pay the tax, or from private citizens who were liable to the tax.
If my understanding of what the Minister has said is correct it is a matter greatly to be regretted that he is adding to those who can assess, and, in effect, charge tax, five diverse bodies—the Highlands and Island Development Board, the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority, the Scottish Development Agency, the Scottish Special Housing Association and the Welsh Development Agency.
In explaining the Order the Minister said that these bodies, when they buy land in future under the Act, will buy it at the difference in value between the market price of that land and the development land tax that would be chargeable on that land if the vendor were liable to the payment of development land tax. Who is to assess what the tax is? One can only assume that these five bodies, as with authorities which already have the power under the Community Land Act and Development Land Tax Act, will be able to assess and deduct that tax.
In other words, this Order is saying that these five bodies are now taxing bodies. They have, in effect, the same powers as the Inland Revenue, to assess someone's development land tax should be in order to arrive at the price at which the land is to be sold to them. This is a matter that we deplore. We think it is wrong that bodies of this kind should be able to assess tax in this way and acquire land as a result.
Perhaps the Minister can also explain precisely the meaning of article 4 (2) (v) which reads:
before the disposal no realised development value had accrued or had been deemed to accrue to the vendor".
Does that mean that one has to discount the value attached to the land by reason of the cost of development? If one is to do that, how does one arrive at the development land tax? Perhaps the Minister can explain how one takes that factor out of account if the whole exercise of article 4 (2) is to deduct a development land tax from a price which is to be paid.
In the other Order we find that the same five bodies are listed as those authorities that may now qualify for grant when they acquire land from the Crown, because the Crown may not, under the Community Land Act, sell net of development land tax. Therefore, it must be made up to those authorities in some other way, namely, out of moneys provided by Parliament. Presumably, as the Minister has presented the Order to the House at this time, he must have in contemplation some transaction that these bodies, or some of them, wish to enter into. Can he tell us what the transactions are? What amount of grant will have to be provided by Parliament under


the operation of this Order? Will the Minister say whether any transactions are being contemplated at present to which either of these Orders would be applicable?

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I am glad to welcome the Minister back to these muddy waters of the Community Land Act and the Development Land Tax Bill. I thought that he had deserted us over the land tax. He certainly needs to grasp these matters to explain the Orders, as we need to grasp them in order to understand them.
Why have these five bodies been selected from the many bodies that are exempt under Clause 11 of the Development Land Tax Bill?

Mr. Rossi: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I regret having to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but I find it very difficult to hear what he says against the background of conversation below the Gangway. I found myself being distracted during my speech by this conversation, but I carried on as best I could. If hon. Members wish to have a conversation that is unrelated to the matters before us, will you invite them to do so outside the Chamber?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that hon. Members in the Chamber have heard the words of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi).

Mr. Page: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). I learnt my politics on street corners, shouting down trams in North London, so I have always had a fairly good voice to get across the Chamber. However, I should be grateful for a little attention, because both Orders are extremely difficult to understand.
I was asking why the five authorities in the schedules had been selected. The Order refers to Section 40 of the Community Land Act, which deals with purchases by authorities from the Crown. It deals with purchases by local authorities, by new town authorities, by the Land Authority for Wales, the Peak Park Joint and Lake District Special Planning Boards, and the joint boards established under Section 2 of the Act. Those are in the Act already. To those are added the bodies specified in the Order.
The bodies exempt from the payment of development land tax include a considerable number of other authorities, and among them are parish councils as opposed to district councils or county councils, and such other bodies as Letchworth Garden City and the Commission for New Towns, and so on. It puzzles me why they do not come into an Order of this sort.
I understand that after the House has approved the draft the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority, for example, when acquiring property from the Crown, will receive a grant of an unspecified amount decided by the Treasury, as direct payment, instead of the development land tax that it might have pocketed on the way in other circumstances. Why do not other authorities, too, get this advantage? Why is a district council entitled, if acquiring from the Crown, to get a grant under Section 40 and yet a parish council is not? Why not include parish councils and Letchworth Garden City and the New Towns Commission? Will the Minister be good enough to explain why? It would be of assistance to those of us who are trying to understand the Order.
I come to the Compulsory Acquisition by Public Authorities (Compensation) Order 1976. This is a little more complicated than the other Order. As I understand the theory of the development land tax, it is a tax on a value created by the community so that the revenue from it must go to those who provide the services for the community. Normally it will not go direct but will reach the providers of the community service via the Treasury, the tax having been paid to the Board of Inland Revenue. If the purchaser is a particular kind of public authority—one of those set out in Section 11 of the Development Land Tax Bill—it may benefit direct by pocketing the tax out of the purchase money before paying the money over.
To use the example of the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority, if that authority were to acquire church property, it being so much worthier than the church it would be allowed to pocket the tax and to retain it for itself. It could deduct what it thought was the development land tax payable if it were to be accounted for to the Board of Inland


Revenue. The Community Land Act, in effect, provides that that could not be done if the sale were to another exempt body. That was provided for in Section 39 of the Act, which rules that there should not be purchases net of tax as between two public bodies. But that does not satisfy the Minister, because he turns back to Section 26 of the Community Land Act and finds that by fiddling about with the law of compensation he can bring about almost the opposite result to that which was set out in Section 29(2) of the Development Land Tax Act.
Let us assume again that the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority acquired land compulsorily from the South Hertfordshire District Council. It would have to pay only a fictitious price—the market value less what it estimated, the development land tax would have been if it had been a transaction with a private body. That would be because Lee Valley had acquired the land from a body mentioned in Section 26(2) of the Community Land Act. It is a local authority, and a local authority is defined in that Act either as a district council or a county council. The definition does not cover a parish council. It includes the Land Authority for Wales, the Peak Park Joint and Lake District Special Planning Boards and the joint boards, but there are, as I mentioned in connection with the other draft Order, a lot of other exempt bodies which do not have to pay development land tax. If the Lee Valley authority acquired from a parish council, a police authority, a fire service authority, the Commission for New Towns, Letchworth Garden City, the North Eastern Housing Association or any of the Northern Ireland authorities, the transaction would be exempt. Why this selection? What is the principle that determines that the bodies mentioned in the Order shall enjoy the benefits while others do not?
If the district authority were acquiring from the Lee Valley authority it could pocket the tax. If a parish council from within that district were acquiring from the Lee Valley authority, it could not. On what principle is the distinction made? It makes nonsense of the Development Land Tax Act and the Community Land Act to make this selection.
We come to what must be deducted from the market value in the Compulsory Acquisition by Public Authorities (Compensation) Order. What has to be deducted is development land tax. That might sound simple to those who have not had to spend 28 sittings in Committee and many hours studying the Development Land Tax Bill, now of 192 pages, to try to find out what development land tax is and how it is calculated.
It is a problem for any authority when it is told "First, you must guess what the market value is"—I do not know whether it will go to the district valuer to find out or whether it can estimate the value for itself—"then you must deduct development land tax, which is not yet imposed by law". The Development Land Tax Bill is not yet on the statute book.

Mr. John Silkin: It is on the statute book.

Mr. Page: Is it?

Mr. John Silkin: Yes; from last Thursday.

Mr. Page: Then it is only just. It still has to be printed as an Act. I presume that it will turn out to have another 192 pages to be studied.
The provisions about purchases net of tax ate set out in Section 39 and Schedule 7 of the Development Land Tax Act. Are those provisions, consisting of 15 pages, for calculating what is to be deducted in net of tax transactions to apply to transactions covered by the Order? It does not say so. Why is it necessary, in any dealing between a public authority and a private person, to have to wade through 15 pages of calculations to find out what the development land tax is when, in an Order of this kind, one can say "The public authority guesses what the development land tax is and deducts that amount"?
I foresee a lot of trouble between local and public bodies over this matter. Who will assess the tax as between two authorities? If one is entitled to pocket part of the purchase money to which the other is entitled, I cannot see the one which thinks that it is entitled to a considerable part of the purchase money abiding


by an estimate by the purchasing authority of what may be the development land tax.
The Order gives no clue as to how the tax is to be calculated. It contains only five small paragraphs of assumptions that have to be made, whereas, for transactions between local authorities and private persons, there are 15 pages of the Development Land Tax Act setting out how the amount should be calculated. I suggest that the Board of Inland Revenue should assess the tax in the proper way and that we should not have this net-of-tax purchase procedure.
These five paragraphs of assumptions are not easy to understand. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey referred to the last one—that one must assume that
before the disposal no realised development valued had accrued or had been deemed to accrue to the vendor.
That raises enormous problems under the Act. There are all the definitions of "realised development value", "deemed disposals", when development value is deemed to accrue, and so on. The tax is not easy to calculate. But the Order leaves it to the whim of the authority that is paying purchase money to some other authority to deduct what it sees fit from that purchase money.
This Order, complicated as it is, should be extended to give some clue as to how the development land tax is to be estimated by the authority that is to pay the purchase money and by the authority that is to receive the purchase money, so that there shall be no dispute between them about the amount of the tax.
My main questions are: why is there this discrimination between authorities, to the detriment of smaller authorities, and how can one estimate the development land tax to be deducted from an estimated market value?

11.50 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I intended to ask only one question. I was surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) thank the Minister for making the meaning of the Order as clear as day. I have not been closely involved in these intricate matters, but I am bewildered and, from what my right hon. Friend the

Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said, so is he—which is saying something. My right hon. Friend, who is a solicitor, says that other solicitors may find difficulty in understanding these provisions. I can certainly confirm that chartered surveyors who will have to advise clients on value or compensation to be paid will find it very difficult.
When one public authority acquires from another, as is apparently the case in at least one of the Orders, is it permitted to delay payment of compensation for the extra three months laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his recent statement, in addition to the inordinate time by which all public authorities delay the payment of due compensation to ordinary private citizens?
This is one of the worst habits of all Governments. They use every excuse to prevent the citizen from receiving money that is due to him.

11.53 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: I can tell the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) that the extra three months' provision does not apply, though no doubt the legal profession, of which I have been a member for many years, will see that delays occur.
In reply to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), I must say that this is not a substantive change in legislation it is a modification of rules in the Land Compensation Act 1961.
I have endeavoured, to the best of my ability, to follow in the footsteps of my distinguished predecessor, the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). I have studied carefully everything done by him. I looked up Section 273 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and Section 252 of the Local Government Act 1972 and said that if they were good enough for him they must be good enough for me.
I do not want to do down the right hon. Gentleman. This provision has a very respectable parentage which goes back many years. I suspect that the hon. Member for Hornsey, who was not born yesterday, knows this full well.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West described his right hon. Friend as


being bewildered. He was not bewildered; he was a little confused, perhaps, as was his hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey.
I want to make it absolutely clear that this Order does not affect the question of public authorities and the private citizen, it refers purely to what happens as between a named number of public authorities and other authorities, under the Act.

Mr. Rossi: I am grateful for that assurance.

Mr. Silkin: What I tried to say in my opening speech was that the powers do exist vis-à-vis the private sector. There was a gap in respect of these public authorities and the public sector, and this Order will put the balance right.
Coming back to the earlier point—the power of the five bodies mentioned to buy net of tax is not contained in the Order but in the Development Land Tax Act.
The next point that the Member for Hornsey raised concerned article 4(2)(v). The point about it is this. Since the development land tax circumstances of a local authority that is selling are not the same as for a private seller, it has been decided that the nearest equivalent of an actual DLT calculation will be produced by treating each disposal as a first disposal in a financial year—in other words, no tax is payable on the first £10,000 of development value, and then, until 31st March 1979, 66⅔ per cent. is payable on the next £150,000, and so on.

Mr. Graham Page: This is an extremely important point. Does it mean that development land tax is to be calculated for this purpose as 80 per cent. and not 66⅔ per cent?

Mr. Silkin: No, it is the reverse of that.
The hon. Member for Hornsey asked about transactions affecting the Crown, I do not know of any.
The right hon. Member for Crosby asked about these five bodies, and he became very eloquent. He had every right to do so. These five are as nearly analogous as I could get to the local authorities themselves, and they have two distinct features. The first is the exemption from development land tax and the second is the power of compulsory purchase, which they had before this Order was ever produced. That is what

makes them distinctive. I think that deals with that question. Really, of course, it deals with most of what the right hon. Gentleman was saying, for example, when he talked about parish councils. They have no CPO powers. A parish council can go to a district council and ask that council to purchase compulsorily for it. The parish council does not come within this provision, because it has no compulsory powers of acquisition.
Equally, it may sound strange to the hon. Member—I must admit that it sounded strange to me when I first saw it—but Letchworth Garden City has no compulsory powers of acquisition, either. Of course, the Commission for the New Towns has no such powers. So although they are in many ways similar to these five bodies, they are not on all fours.

Mr. Graham Page: That distinction is irrelevant. All the bodies that I have mentioned, plus those in the Order, are those bodies that do not have to pay development land tax. There seems no reason why the Minister should have produced the Order merely picking out those with compulsory powers. I know that the Order says that, but why pick them out? Why not select all those that have the benefit of freedom from the tax?

Mr. Silkin: Because Letchworth Garden City, for example, and the Commission for the New Towns have no powers to acquire land compulsorily from, let us say, Crosby District Council, if there is one. It is for that reason that those are excluded. I do not know that these five bodies could acquire land from Crosby District Council, or would want to, but they have the power to acquire from a public authority.
I think that I have dealt with all the points put to me. I hope that the House is satisfied that the Orders are necessary. They come up only because the Development Land Tax Bill, as it then was, followed the Community Land Act. Had they run simultaneously, or in the other order, this matter could have been dealt with somewhat earlier. But this is the only procedure we have.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Acquisition from the Crown (Grants) Order 1976, a draft of which was


laid before this House on 15th July, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Compulsory Acquisition by Public Authorities (Compensation) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th July, be approved.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL WALES [MONEY] (No. 2)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a Development Board for Rural Wales it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the transfer to district councils of dwellings and associated property of new town corporations.—[Mr. Barry Jones.]

M3 MOTORWAY INQUIRY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]

12.2 a.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: As the Minister knows, there has been a great deal of fuss about the M3 near Winchester. I believe that the most important thing now is to cool it—in other words, to abate some of the emotion and excitement that has been generated, to look at the problem in perspective, and to bring some common sense to bear.
The Minister's plans for a new road across the Itchen Valley and then close beside the existing bypass have been confirmed and approved by successive Ministers in successive Governments. I make that point to emphasise that this is not a party political matter.
In 1971 a public inquiry was held concerning the proposed route, and any objections were voiced. An M3 Motorway Action Group was formed. The various objections were made fully known to the Minister at the time, both at the inquiry and since, by correspondence and in a previous Adjournment debate. I also took a delegation to see him. However, in 1973 the Minister confirmed the proposed corridor and line.

Even in the most advanced democracy a final decision has eventually to be taken. Argument cannot go on for ever!
I must emphasise the obvious fact that, of course, it is the Minister who has the statutory duty to take the decision and not the local Member of Parliament, and I do not envy the Minister his task. However, in a matter of such importance to his constituents a Member of Parliament must make up his own mind and hold an opinion.
My view throughout has been, first, that a new road is most urgently required both for local and national reasons and, secondly, that unfortunately no radically different alternative route is available which is less objectionable.
Although I know only too well that substantial numbers are still bitterly opposed to the motorway, a consensus among my constituents generally seems to be that an improved road is urgently needed, and the quicker the better. The elected county council, which is the highway authority concerned, has expressed its support for the Minister's proposals.
The objectors, however, are numerous. They include the action group, whose chairman is a Mr. David Pare and whose active president is Lord Aldington. The action group has support from the Winchester Preservation Trust, the Conservation Society and many other organisations and associations. It also has support from Winchester College and, latterly, from the Dean of the Cathedral and the Bishop, as well as some parish councils and many individual citizens, whether or not their houses or properties are directly affected. I have today sent the Minister a summary of over 20 headings under which the various protests have reached me, and I hope that it has been received by him.
I do not question the sincerity of the vast majority of the objectors. Most of them are reasonable and sensible people who, despite the variety of arguments they have put forward, all have this in common—that they feel very strongly about any threat to the peace, tranquillity and beauty of their city and its surroundings. Many of them also feel very strongly about the wider aspects of conservation. On these points I entirely share their view, and if I really thought that the M3 would ruin the city,


as it is so often put, I should be campaigning against it. But I have honestly and conscientiously come to the opposite conclusion. For me to oppose the new road would be dishonest and would not accord with my genuine opinion as to where the true interests of the majority of my constituents lie.
I am glad to say that, despite this marked difference of opinion, my personal relations with the chairman of the action group and his lieutenants have remained cordial, and this I very much appreciate.
Unfortunately, however, some people feel that the M3 must be stopped at all costs and by any means. At the first sitting of the current inquiry, which I attended, the tactics adopted by many of the objectors, although not all, were to disrupt the proceedings completely and to prevent the inquiry making any headway.
A number of my constituents, many well known to me and including some masters from Winchester College, were prominent among those using and orchestrating these disruptive tactics, both in this and subsequent meetings. In this they were encouraged by a certain Mr. John Tyme, who, I understand, is a lecturer at Sheffield Polytechnic. As far as I know, he has nothing to do with Winchester, except that he may have received a fee for his services. Mr. Tyme's evidence was designed to prove that the inquiry had no validity and was not properly convened.
Now that the inspector is prepared to hear objections about the line of the proposed M3 and about the need for it, Mr. Tyme's claims that the inquiry is "illegal" and "should be adjourned indefinitely" seem to be much less enthusiastically supported by his clients!

Dr. Reginald Bennett: Will my hon. and gallant Friend say whether the Headmaster of Winchester was involved in the disorder?

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: So I understand from the Press, but it is only fair to say that I did not see this event myself. That is why I have not referred to it.
While I entirely sympathise with those who wish to put forward valid objections, I utterly deplore these disruptive tactics. Democracy is at risk when pro-

perly authorised meetings are disrupted by organised groups in pursuit of their own particular aims. I emphase this, because it is more important than anything affecting the motorway.
Needless to say, some people claimed that it was necessary to make so much fuss because there was no other way to put their point of view. That is untrue, because throughout the long M3 saga I have always been available and willing to hear objections and have faithfully relayed them to the Minister even if I did not personally agree with them. I think the Minister's bulky files will bear that out.
In the event, it was the calm and reasonable arguments of Mr. John Spoke, QC, and Mr. David Keen, QC, when eventually they could be heard, which achieved the broadening of the scope of the inquiry, rather than the shouting of those who, following Mr. Tyme's line, wanted to prevent the inquiry being held at all.

Mr. Robert Adley: Is my hon. Friend aware that although Mr. Tyme has maintained that Parliament should make the decisions, as secretary of the Conservative Transport Committee and vice-chairman of the Conservative Group of Wessex MPs, I have never had a request from anyone even to discuss the issue?

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: That is an interesting point.
The events of which I have spoken are now in the past. Let us now consider the future and try to see where we go from here. One hopeful development may lead us out of the quicksands into which we have wandered. Until last year the action group's opposition was total and it had no construcive alternative to put forward. The action group—to which I pay tribute for its persistence and its good intent—has now put forward the constructive suggestion that instead of a completely new road extensive improvements should be made to the existing A33. If that were technically possible it would be a compromise well worth considering, because the Minister's decision to create a new road in this corridor would be implemented, while the action group would feel that it had achieved at least a partial victory by avoiding the worst aspects of running the


motorway through the water meadows. Certainly the removal of the two sets of lights should produce some amelioration of the traffic jams, and speed restrictions might be acceptable.
I do not know whether experience with other schemes shows that road improvements as a palliative are cost-effective or whether it is cheaper, in the long run, to construct a completely new road in such circumstances, but it is certain that the longer the work is delayed, the more costly it becomes.
I believe that a drawing of the action group's improvement scheme was sent to the Department some time ago; but I have a personal copy of it for the Minister, which I shall give to him behind the Speaker's Chair after the debate.
I shall ask the Minister to answer six specific questions. First, will he take a full page in the Hampshire Chronicle to show a really large-scale map of the proposed route, which even now is still not fully understood by everybody in Winchester, and also arrange for a model to be placed on exhibition locally, because that is much the easiest thing to understand?
Secondly, will the Minister accept an invitation to visit the area and see the layout, if he has not yet had an opportunity of doing so?
Thirdly, will the Minister personally consider the action group's alternative scheme and send his comments to it and to me when he has done so?
Fourthly, does the Minister realise that the unaccustomed behaviour of so many normally level-headed citizens of Winchester indicates, to say the least, some doubt and concern about the adequacy of consultative processes? Will he inform the House about the progress of Government talks with the Council or Tribunals, which, I understand, are intended to overhaul and improve the procedures for this type of inquiry?
Fifthly, has the Minister considered a proposal that the original design studies for new major roads should be put out to tender, so that private enterprise consultants could submit alternative schemes for consideration? That is an interesting suggestion arising from the action group and it might enable informal consulta-

tion to take place locally at an earlier stage than is possible at present.
Sixthly—I hope that this is not comic relief—can the Minister confirm or deny the report in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph that among the schemes likely to be axed under the Government's new expenditure cuts is the "controversial M3 scheme"?
My constituents will be grateful for anything the Minister can do to point the way ahead in this very difficult problem.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I do not want to enter into the merits of this controversy—that is for the inquiry rather than for us, but I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) that the need now is to cool the controversy. I also agree with him that it is a wholly non-party issue.
I should like to add a tribute to the inspector, who had a difficult job and is clearly anxious that there should be a fair-minded and thorough examination of the issues.
As I thought I heard the words "violence" and "disorder", it should be said that there was no violence at the inquiry. There were some loud expressions of protest, which sometimes rendered the proceedings inaudible, but that is not unknown in this House. We should not be too sanctimonious about that. The reason is that at these inquiries there has been a feeling that the real issues—whether there should be a road at all, and, if so, where it should go—have been ruled out of order. That has given a feeling of inadequacy and unfairness.
The Government have now altered their view. It is now not out of order at inquiries to argue the basic issues and advocate alternatives, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested. Now that the inspector has ruled that this should be done it seems to me that progress can be made. Indeed, the reason why the inspector postponed the inquiry until September was not alleged violence but precisely that he wanted further evidence that he considered necessary. I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that that is so. I hope that from


now on the controversy will be conducted seriously on those lines.
If my hon. Friend the Minister accepts the invitation to visit the spot and see for himself, I shall be delighted to go with him.

12.17 a.m.

Mr. Robert Adley: I support what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) has said. We owe him a debt of gratitude. He could easily have taken what appeared to be the popular line. Instead, he is taking the line he believes to be in the interests of the majority of his constituents.
I understand that without any of the hullabaloo in Winchester hon. Members concerned with the M42 in the Midlands recently put to the Department of the Environment alternative plans, which the Department considered, and the original plans were changed. If that had been done at any time by the Winchester protesters we might well have managed to avoid all the hoo-hah.
I deplore the argument that is put forward frequently, that the tactics used in Winchester could be justified by the breeding and social standing of the people concerned. That is wrong, and I hope that the Minister will say so.

12.18 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) for raising this important matter. I commend him both for raising the issue and for the way in which he has approached it. I am also grateful for the contributions of other hon. Members, particularly the tribute of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) to the inspector. The argument that inspectors are the servants of the Department and are not independent must now have gone.
The hon. and gallant Member knows that the inquiry at Winchester has been adjourned until 14th September. Its opening days were disfigured by scenes of disruption of the proceedings and harassment of the inspector, and it was readily apparent that much of the dis-

ruption was planned beforehand. This raises very serious constitutional issues, which are rightly the concern of Parliament. At this stage I must express my appreciation of the hon. and gallant Member's interventions at the inquiry in support of law and order.
There have been so many wild and inaccurate statements about the purpose of the inquiry at Winchester that it is essential to spell out the facts clearly. I shall be coming to the points raised by the hon. Members shortly, but perhaps we can first get the whole matter into perspective.
The intention of providing a first-class route between London and Southampton has been the stated policy of successive Secretaries of State. The precise alignment of the various sections of the route has been the subject of a number of public inquiries, one of which was held in Winchester in 1971 to help the Secretary of State to come to a decision on the line between Popham and Compton.
Several alternatives were considered by the inspector at the 1971 inquiry, including the possibility of improving the existing bypass, but he recommended, and the Secretary of State subsequently agreed, that the best solution was to build a new road to the east of the city. The line of this road was established by statutory Order in 1973.
Three years later, in June of this year, the present inquiry was opened. This was to give objectors an opportunity of expressing their views on the Secretary of State's proposals for the side roads and road junctions on the route already fixed, and on the compulsory purchase order for the land required for the scheme as a whole.
Complaints are sometimes made about "the Secretary of State being judge and jury in his own case". Such complaints are misconceived. Trunk road inquiries, and the decisions which the Secretary of State has to make after considering inspectors' reports, are administrative, not judicial. The Secretary of State is responsible, under the Highways Acts, for keeping the national system of trunk roads under review and for extending or improving it as he considers necessary. He is accountable to Parliament for the way in which he carries out this responsibility.
But before deciding on the line for any particular trunk road, the law requires the Secretary of State to publish a draft order so that people who want to object to it can have their say, usually at a public inquiry. Where there is an inquiry, the inspector considers the Secretary of State's proposals in the context of the objections and reports his findings and recommendations to the Secretary of State. But the inspector is not an arbitrator or a judge. He does not make the decision. He presents his findings to the Secretary of State upon whom the ultimate decision-making responsibility rests.
It is against that background that we have to look at what happened at Winchester. I fully appreciate that there are strong feelings about the motorway proposals and their effect on the locality, but I think it is beyond question that, by any reasonable standard, the public interest is not being served by the behaviour of some objectors who, allegedly in the name of freedom and natural justice, obstructed the inspector and denied to others their right to be heard.
I think it is only right to say also that there is a particular difficulty in a highly charged atmosphere about the role of television camera crews. Naturally, we want the Press to be represented at these inquiries, but the presence of television crews needs very careful consideration. I shall say no more about that than that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is asking the Council on Tribunals whether it can help him with its advice on this matter.
At the inquiry a great deal of nonsense was talked about the so-called illegality of the proceedings. I am advised that these inquiries have the full sanction of the law and that, if there were any serious suggestions of illegality, there is provision under the Second Schedule to the Highways Act 1959 for questioning the validity of any trunk road Order or the procedure under which it is made. No action is taken by the Department to finalise schemes until after the expiration of the six-week challenge period under that Act.
It is a myth that, as was argued at Winchester, an inquiry is not opened until participants have made submissions to the inspector on points of procedure. The

inquiry is open when the inspector declares it to be open—even if his words are drowned by the shouts of demonstrators. Thereafter, under the rules of procedure, it is for the inspector to decide at his discretion what evidence he hears and the order in which he hears it. The present procedures presuppose that the members of the public taking part in the inquiry will have a proper respect for the law and the authority of the inspector. In trying to maintain this position at the few inquiries where disruption on a large scale has occurred, inspectors have naturally had to rely heavily on the police, and I should like to take this opportunity to thank them for their valuable cooperation in very provocative circumstances.
Perhaps I could turn now to the next stages of the inquiry. The inspector has now decided, as he has discretion to do, that when the inquiry reopens on September 14th he will hear arguments about the need for having a new motorway at all in preference to an improvement of the existing A33 trunk road, as defined by the M3 Motorway Action Group and others. He has asked for an analysis to be made of the costs and benefits of the action group's scheme, for comparison with the calculations which have already been made for the motorway route.
My Department has agreed to cooperate in providing further information for this purpose. Indeed, in recognition of the fact that a revised traffic justification for a new motorway would in any case be needed for the present inquiry in the light of new traffic forecasts the Department had provided updated traffic figures for the benefit of objectors some weeks before the inquiry opened.
Before concluding I should like to deal with some of the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester. First, there is the question whether the Department would publish a full-page map in the local Hampshire Chronicle. I want to consider the point about a map and model. Normally, the Department does not publish maps in the local papers, but copies are available in the offices of the road construction unit at Dorking and the Hampshire County Council at Winchester. These are available to the Press if it wishes to make use of them and reproduce them.
On the question whether I and my predecessors have visited the area, I have seen the Water Meadows, St. Catherine's Hill, the bypass itself and the route of the road. My predecessor did so at the time of the 1973 inquiries and so did the Minister for Transport Industries of the day. I shall put the suggestion to the Secretary of State and to my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport.
As to whether I shall personally consider the views of objectors, objectors' views are known within the Department, and no doubt the inspector will take account of them in submitting his report to the Secretary of State.
Before taking any decision the Secretary of State will look carefully at the views of objectors in the light of the inspector's report. This is exactly the procedure that took place at the 1971 inquiry and at all other inquiries.
I appreciate that there is genuine doubt and concern about the adequacy of the consultative process. There is a problem here, although there are now formal rules of procedure governing trunk road inquiries. We have been assembling a considerable amount of further information and comment on the present consultative processes, and discussions with the Council on Tribunals will be beginning fairly soon.
The suggestion that design studies should be put out to tender is a difficult one. Tendering is an extremely expensive business for the firms that do the tendering, and I should like to consider that point further.
As to the report in the Sunday Telegraph about Government cuts and the question whether the controversial M3 will be cut, I cannot say anything about that now. Since Thursday the Department has been considering very urgently the question of the roads programme, and my right hon. Friend will be making an announcement fairly soon. But I must again express a personal point of view and say that if we are to have an export-led revival the roads to the ports are extremely important roads.
I should like briefly to make some comments on an article that appeared in a weekly magazine on Friday last. The Headmaster of Winchester, writing in support of the disrupters in this week's

New Statesman, quoted approvingly the words of Mr. John Tyme at Winchester:
Which is to prevail in this room today—the rule of law and parliamentary democracy, or centralised bureaucratic power responsible to no one?
It seems to me, from the actions at Winchester, that Mr. Tyme and his regular followers, and his temporary followers at Winchester, believe neither in the rule of law nor in parliamentary democracy.
The elected representative of Winchester in this House has tonight expressed his opinion of the attempt to prevent a properly convened inquiry from starting and disrupting it when it had started. I know of no Hampshire Member of this House or of any Wessex Member who has supported the objectors or the disruption. Hampshire County Council, an elected body, has not objected to the proposals, nor has it supported the disruption. Winchester City Council itself has not supported the disrupters, though it has some reasonable objections to the side roads order.
The centralised bureaucratic power of which Mr. Tyme talks is responsible. It is responsible to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State is answerable to this House, as I am answerable tonight.
The Head of Winchester complained of being ejected for standing up when he had been told to sit down and for speaking when he had been told to be silent by an inspector lawfully appointed to preside over the inquiry. Perhaps some lessons on Parliament would not be amiss at Winchester. We in this House can be ejected for exactly the same kind of behaviour. If we have many more debates at this time of night, I shall be tempted to try it. I do not know what happens at Winchester College when someone keeps on shouting when he is told to be quiet, or stands up when he has been told to sit down, but, as a former headmaster of a boys' secondary school, I take a special interest in these matters.
I welcome what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said. I cannot enter into the merits of the Department's scheme or of the objectors' scheme at this stage, but I hope that the explanations that I have given will assist hon. Members and all others who are interested in the Winchester inquiry.
It would be regrettable and of great damage to people's democratic rights if any further disruption at the inquiry were to prevent people who are directly affected by the proposals putting forward their views in a calm and reasonable atmosphere.

12.31 a.m.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: My duties take me past Winchester fairly regularly. On the last three occasions that I have sought to go past Winchester, I have been forced to turn round on the present bypass and go through the town. If the objectors go on with their disruptive work, all traffic will be forced through the town again.
On the last occasion of which I speak, I had to go through College Street and Kingsgate Street, which is presumably

just what the Headmaster of Winchester is trying to prevent.
There will be nothing to stop traffic going through Winchester if there is continued obstruction to traffic on the present bypass by these intellectuals who are against the new road and the whole principle of an improvement.
I admire the courage of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), which is as great in peace as it was in war, in standing up to this disruption—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to One o'clock.